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

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

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 104 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 >  Last ›
   10301. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4310840)
His hypothetical behavior is perfectly consistent with evolutionary biology.


I wouldn't know about such complicated concepts, but he's claimed in addition to voting for Jindal based on heritage, he's also voted for Matt Fong for the same reason. Now since the two men don't look the same or have similarly shared phenotypic expressions of geography, he must be making his decision based on something beyond genetic commonality, such as his own biases.

Frankly this is just the flip side of the Dittohead Right bemoaning the fact that Colin Powell only voted for Barak Obama due to their shared negritude.
   10302. JuanGone..except1game Posted: November 27, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4310841)
Sure, that's pretty much my position as well - but El Hombre's is informed by a set of circumstances I haven't experienced, so I am loath to judge. I do find it surprising, and am genuinely curious as to how many similarly situated folks share it.


I always find comments like this curious. Most of the people in this forum are white men. So say you grew up in Kenya your entire life (and your parents and grandparents lives) without the possiblity that any white man could ascend to the Presidency, and one day a white man of reasonable stature but from a different party was in earshot of that goal. Can you honestly think that tribilism wouldn't come in to play for your decision if even to a small extent?
   10303. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 27, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4310847)
His hypothetical behavior is perfectly consistent with evolutionary biology. Even the behaviors we think of as "altruism" and "concern for others" were selected for to promote one's own genetic heritage. There is no escape from tribalism.
I didn't vote for Fong because of tribalism. I voted for Fong (and would vote for Jindal) to break of tribalism: I want Asian-Americans to become a commonly accepted part of the American political tribe. The only way to do that is to get more Asian-Americans in office, to have our faces be commonplace, to not have our loyalties questioned because we don't look like Captain America.
   10304. Tripon Posted: November 27, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4310850)
Speaking as an Asian man, I'd vote for Jindal too. But only after I figure out which candidate is the best candidate for 2016.
   10305. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4310851)
I didn't vote for Fong because of tribalism. I voted for Fong (and would vote for Jindal) to break of tribalism: I want Asian-Americans to become a commonly accepted part of the American political tribe. The only way to do that is to get more Asian-Americans in office, to have our faces be commonplace, to not have our loyalties questioned because we don't look like Captain America.


So you're a racist?
   10306. The Good Face Posted: November 27, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4310856)
I wouldn't know about such complicated concepts, but he's claimed in addition to voting for Jindal based on heritage, he's also voted for Matt Fong for the same reason. Now since the two men don't look the same or have similarly shared phenotypic expressions of geography, he must be making his decision based on something beyond genetic commonality, such as his own biases.


Apparently not since you yourself accused him of voting his "genetic commonalities" over the best interests of the country.

Frankly this is just the flip side of the Dittohead Right bemoaning the fact that Colin Powell only voted for Barak Obama due to their shared negritude.


And it's just as dumb when you do it. Dumber really, since you should know better. Or are you no smarter than the average dittohead?

   10307. spike Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4310860)
I don't think Bobby Jindal's some crazy extremist

He's a no-exceptions-except-health-of-mother right to lifer who advocates the teaching of creationism, among other things. I don't know where you draw the line, but that's over for me.
   10308. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4310861)
So you're a racist?
Yes, I'm a racist because I don't like having people question my loyalty to the United States because of the way I look.
   10309. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4310862)

By some measures, Sandy was worse than Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which tore into the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005, Cuomo said.

Sandy destroyed 305,000 houses in New York state - a still provisional number that's likely to grow - compared to the 214,700 destroyed in Louisiana by Katrina and Rita.

Sandy also caused nearly 2.2 million power outages at its peak in the state, compared to 800,000 from Katrina and Rita in Louisiana, and impacted 265,300 businesses compared to 18,700, Cuomo said.

While Sandy may have damaged more homes and businesses, Katrina took a far greater toll on human lives, killing more than 1,800 people directly or indirectly. Sandy, by comparison, is believed to have killed at least 121 people.

"Hurricane Katrina got a lot of notoriety for the way government handled -- or mishandled, depending on your point of view -- the situation," Cuomo said at a press conference.

But considering the dense population of the area Sandy impacted and costs to the economy, housing, and businesses, the damage done "was much larger in Hurricane Sandy than in Hurricane Katrina, and that puts this entire conversation, I believe, in focus," Cuomo said.


Link
   10310. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4310863)
Apparently not since you yourself accused him of voting his "genetic commonalities" over the best interests of the country.


And you would describe his actions how?

And it's just as dumb when you do it. Dumber really, since you should know better. Or are you no smarter than the average dittohead?


I'm just parsing what he wrote openly. Do you disagree with the comparison?
   10311. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4310866)
As an American I would hope you would vote for the candidate whose policies provided the clearest benefit to the nation and its citizenry, rather than defer to petty tribalism.


Yeah, okay, so this is actually more offensive than my noodles joke. The decision is not "should I put my tribe above my nation*." The decision is "do I favor this short term interest of this set of citizens or the long term interest of this other set of citizens, such as my sons and daughters, who will benefit greatly from having faces like his normalized in the political process going forward."
   10312. spike Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4310867)
Can you honestly think that tribilism wouldn't come in to play for your decision if even to a small extent?

I can't say for sure - which is why I said I am loath to judge someone for doing so.
   10313. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4310869)
I don't think Bobby Jindal's some crazy extremist.


He is a bit of an anti-evolution creationist, I think.
   10314. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4310872)
es, I'm a racist because I don't like having people question my loyalty to the United States because of the way I look.


And as an admitted racist, you think voting for people based solely on their "race" will make people more accepting of your American bonafides? That seems curious to me. If during the run-up to the previous two presidential elections I heard someone crow that they were voting for the white man based on their own whiteness without regard to actual policy I've had thought them boorish.
   10315. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4310874)
I don't think Bobby Jindal's some crazy extremist.

He is a bit of an anti-evolution creationist, I think.


He's also, famously, performed an exorcism.
   10316. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4310876)
Oh, the trailing asterisk in 10311 was going to be a footnote to the effect that nationlism *is* tribalism taken to the next level, and you can't be an American nationalist and ##### about "tribalism" from others in the same sentence.
   10317. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4310880)
If during the run-up to the previous two presidential elections I heard someone crow that they were voting for the white man based on their own whiteness without regard to actual policy I've had thought them boorish.


Yeah, but the situations aren't really comparable. White people have no particular need to think about a legacy of invisibility that will be left to their children and grandchildren and so forth. Asian-Americans have a fair argument that doing so is not only rational, but reasonable.

That said, Jindal is over the crazy line for me.
   10318. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4310881)
He's a no-exceptions-except-health-of-mother right to lifer who advocates the teaching of creationism, among other things. I don't know where you draw the line, but that's over for me.


This. Jindal's record on education in Louisiana is pitiful; using government money to pass Young Earth Creationism off as science is "extreme," AFAIC.
   10319. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4310882)
Jindal - no. In fact, hell no.

Rubio - No, not after he waffled on an age-of-the-earth question. Really?
   10320. spike Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4310884)
Jindal's record on education in Louisiana is pitiful;

If he can't turn around the mess of a voucher system he sponsored, I suspect it will greatly hurt his national ambitions.
   10321. The Good Face Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4310886)
And you would describe his actions how?


Since he's probably not both Indian AND Chinese (although I guess it's possible), he's probably not just voting his genetic commonalities. Therefore, I'll take him at his word, or to put it another way, accept his rationalizations for his behavior.

I'm just parsing what he wrote openly. Do you disagree with the comparison?


Not at all, you remind me quite a bit of the dittoheads I've met.
   10322. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4310887)
And as an admitted racist, you think voting for people based solely on their "race" will make people more accepting of your American bonafides? That seems curious to me.
Maybe it's because you're choosing to read something in my words that isn't there.

If during the run-up to the previous two presidential elections I heard someone crow that they were voting for the white man based on their own whiteness without regard to actual policy I've had thought them boorish.
It's not necessary to crow about voting for whiteness. Voting for whiteness is the default setting in American politics.

That said, Jindal is over the crazy line for me.
Like I said, I don't know that much about Jindal. I'd like to see more Asian-Americans in politics, but nobody wants to vote for someone they think is batsh!t crazy.
   10323. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4310888)
Yeah, okay, so this is actually more offensive than my noodles joke.


Wait, wait, I gotta find my flapping dickie!

The decision is "do I favor this short term interest of this set of citizens or the long term interest of this other set of citizens, such as my sons and daughters, who will benefit greatly from having faces like his normalized in the political process going forward


I'm sorry but if you aren't an American first and a member of whatever regional heritage and/or religious affiliation second, you're a pretty lousy American. If you intentionally vote for an inferior candidate knowing that his policies are deleterious, you're offloading misery on someone else for pure racist reasons. That's shameful. I'm not going to vote for Joe Lieberman just because I'm Jewish. I'm not going to defer to a candidate's fealty to Israel as my primary motivation in voting.

Heck, if you're voting for an admittedly inferior candidate on the basis of their race, what if they're elected and awful? Perhaps that sets back your racialist "cause" by a generation. That'll teach ya.

Oh, the trailing asterisk in 10311 was going to be a footnote to the effect that nationlism *is* tribalism taken to the next level


And sentences are words taken to the next level, but they impart greater meaning and have more utility. An American can express many different phenotypes.

you can't be an American nationalist and ##### about "tribalism" from others in the same sentence.


The #### I can't. I'm interested in who is best qualified to be entrusted with American governance, not who lights candles on Shabbos or looks like my Great-uncle Solomon.
   10324. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4310895)
Voting based on self-interest or based on the race of the candidate is petty but, well, everyone is entitled to vote however many times they want even if they're dead so, have at it.
   10325. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4310898)
lousy American


Poppycock. First and foremost, the idea that one can somehow be bad at being an American is awful. That way lies fascism. Second of all, the fact that one is voting on one set of issues -- the visibility of an ethnic minority, from which may be drawn qualified people who are currently left out of the process -- rather than another set of issues -- taxes or the environment or gay rights or whatever -- indicates neither racism nor a lack of consideration. It doesn't necessarily even indicate self-interest.

Regionalism, for instance, in fact has rational roots. It is plausible to say that a person, regardless of his stance on issues, is more likely to govern in a way that is amenable to the people around whom he grew up, who shaped his philosophies and worldview. A candidate from Oregon understands the world in an Oregonian way, and that has value to Oregonians -- and they may rationally believe that it has value to all Americans.
   10326. Shredder Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4310901)
Yes, I'm a racist because I don't like having people question my loyalty to the United States because of the way I look.
While I sympathize with you, if you're not white, I'm not sure the running successfully for high office is exactly a firewall against people questioning your loyalty to the United States. I'm guessing President Obama would agree with me.
   10327. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4310904)
I'm sorry but if you aren't an American first and a member of whatever regional heritage and/or religious affiliation second, you're a pretty lousy American. If you intentionally vote for an inferior candidate knowing that his policies are deleterious, you're offloading misery on someone else for pure racist reasons. That's shameful.


Even taking the premise at face value I don't know that I agree. As the token BBTF superfan of diversity I think having a somewhat inferior candidate (when judged in isolation) can lead to better group results. Adding one more pea to the pod (even a superior pea) may not add as much value as an onion (even an inferior onion).

So even ignoring the "face of the future" effect where it is important for folks to see folks like them suceed and ignoring my terrible food analogy above (peas and onions, really?) I think there is value in diversity of life experience and diversity of thought in a representative body like the House or Senate (I am less enamored with it in the executive position).

Of course that valued is somewhat minimized in the current world of partisan gridlock, since diversity does not mean much when parties turtle up and don't compromise. But I think calling such voting behavior shameful is way over the mark. Especially in abstract. In reality you would have to compare the actual candidates to know if voting for the "inferior" candidate was worthwhile or not.
   10328. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4310905)
Poppycock


A less well known nickname for Bill Clinton.
   10329. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4310907)
Yeah, but the situations aren't really comparable. White people have no particular need to think about a legacy of invisibility that will be left to their children and grandchildren and so forth. Asian-Americans have a fair argument that doing so is not only rational, but reasonable.


That's just obnoxious, to say nothing of un-American. Voting for racist reasons is simply a racist action, exactly as many conservatives unfairly claimed of Colin Powell. I'm glad El Hombre laid his racialism bare and wouldn't have otherwise bothered with the topic, but saying that all minorities are only being "rational" and "reasonable" in voting only for minority candidates, even openly inferior ones, is the sort of paternal tribalism that I had hoped we could avoid when dealing with serious matters. I mean, if the owner of an NBA basketball team wants to pack 12 Chinese guys onto his roster in hopes that it will boost Asian participation in the sport worldwide I wouldn't care a whit if he lost 70 games and his ticket sales dwindled - he's free to chase his white whale (so to speak), but political appointments frequently have consequences.

And taken to its logical extension? The Asian electee should be excused for appointing an all-Asian staff? You know, to normalize the idea of Asian political staffers.

I'm sorry, but I find this whole idea patently offensive, just as I would if Mitt Romney somehow invoked the intervention of Angel Macaroni and ascended to the White House only to fill all his appointments with devout Mormons. Experience? Aptitude? Qualifications? All subservient to the greater goal of widespread acceptance of Mormons in political power. Phooey.

   10330. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4310908)
So even ignoring the "face of the future" effect where it is important for folks to see folks like them suceed and ignoring my terrible food analogy above (peas and onions, really?) I think there is value in diversity of life experience and diversity of thought in a representative body like the House or Senate (I am less enamored with it in the executive position).


Hell, I'm gonna vote for Bobby Jindal just so the Angels will trade me Mike Trout for Jair Jurrjens.
   10331. Greg K Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4310911)
may not add as much value as an onion (even an inferior onion)

If half an onion is black with rot it as a rotten onion. A man is good or he is evil.
   10332. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4310912)
That's just obnoxious, to say nothing of un-American. Voting for racist reasons is simply a racist action


All identity voting is unamerican? So gays voting for a gay candidate or women voting for a woman candidate or vetrans voting for a fellow vet are all unamerican? Voting for the states favorite son is unamerican? Because huge numbers of Americans have been voting that way for a long long time.

And taken to its logical extension?


I really don't like slippery slope arguments.
   10333. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4310914)
even openly inferior ones


I'm not sure I know what you mean by "inferior" in this case.

Look, I've never voted for anyone simply because their name was Silverstein or they looked like my uncle Solomon or whatever -- but then, Jews became Americans long before I was born. I have no frame of reference. But what we're talking about here is not tribalism but rational attempts to gain access to the process.

And cut it out with that "un-American" ####. It just makes you sound like an idiot.
   10334. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4310915)
If half an onion is black with rot it as a rotten onion. A man is good or he is evil.


Layers I say, layers.
   10335. The Good Face Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4310919)
I'm glad El Hombre laid his racialism bare and wouldn't have otherwise bothered with the topic, but saying that all minorities are only being "rational" and "reasonable" in voting only for minority candidates, even openly inferior ones, is the sort of paternal tribalism that I had hoped we could avoid when dealing with serious matters.


That sort of racialism is how we're biologically programmed to behave. Why do you hate science?
   10336. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4310921)
I'm sorry but if you aren't an American first and a member of whatever regional heritage and/or religious affiliation second, you're a pretty lousy American.
So if other Americans insist on treating certain groups as being less than American, those groups should... just shut up and take it? That doesn't sound very American. American governance hasn't always been considerate to ethnic minorities. The best way to guard against that is to actually have those minorities as part of American governance.

Heck, if you're voting for an admittedly inferior candidate on the basis of their race, what if they're elected and awful? Perhaps that sets back your racialist "cause" by a generation. That'll teach ya.
I've voted for white candidates all my life whom I've believed to be great, and they've been awful with no particular setbacks to their race. I'll take my chances.

I'm glad El Hombre laid his racialism bare and wouldn't have otherwise bothered with the topic,
Having voted for a white candidate for nearly every political office in every single election has taken it's toll, but I've managed.
   10337. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4310926)
I've voted for white candidates all my life


Uncle Tom.
   10338. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4310927)
If half an onion is black with rot it is a rotten onion. A man is good or he is evil.

That's the philosophy that made Vince McMahon a billionaire.
   10339. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4310933)
First and foremost, the idea that one can somehow be bad at being an American is awful.


There are American ideals and there are un-American ideals, are there not? A politician who swore fealty to the Pope would not be acting in the best interests of America but in those of a foreign theocrat. That strikes me as being a lousy American at the least.

That way lies fascism.


You know where fascism often lies? In the promotion of ethnic heritage as paramount above other considerations. How could a good Spaniard vote for a Basque?

Second of all, the fact that one is voting on one set of issues -- the visibility of an ethnic minority


Or, shall we say, birthright?

rather than another set of issues -- taxes or the environment or gay rights or whatever -- indicates neither racism nor a lack of consideration.


I disagree. If you're voting on an immutable inborn characteristic to the exclusion of any other consideration, the very *best* and most generous interpretation is that you're just provincial and stupid. The best, most qualified candidate in the world isn't good enough for you because his family fled Somalia and yours fled Laos? My, how very progressive.

Regionalism, for instance, in fact has rational roots. It is plausible to say that a person, regardless of his stance on issues, is more likely to govern in a way that is amenable to the people around whom he grew up, who shaped his philosophies and worldview.


And yet in this very specific thread, with regard to the very specific discussion at hand, El Hombre mentions his shared support for Bobby Jindal (infant Hindi immigrant to America and raised in Louisiana) and Matt Fong (American-born of Chinese ancestory and raised in California). So what can we infer about how these quite dissimilar upbringings have drawn the support of this one particular voter? What sort of regionalist, rationalist interpretation undergirds such thought?
   10340. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4310934)
If half an onion is black with rot it is a rotten onion. A man is good or he is evil.

That's the philosophy that made Vince McMahon a billionaire.


Yes but while there is no gray in Vince's world and someone may only be good or he may only be evil-
one can CHANGE and become the opposite.
   10341. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4310935)
There are American ideals and there are un-American ideals, are there not? A politician who swore fealty to the Pope would not be acting in the best interests of America but in those of a foreign theocrat. That strikes me as being a lousy American at the least.


So Rick Santorum is a bad American? Works for me.
   10342. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4310936)
I've voted for white candidates all my life
Yeah, if there's one thing that can be known for damn certain about American politics, it's that non-white voters have cast vote after vote for white candidates. Given that white folks have been voting for white folks for centuries, and moreover non-white folks have been voting for white candidates for as long as they've had the vote, the idea that now a non-white voter sending a vote to a non-white candidate is racially motivated in some untoward way is stupid and offensive.
   10343. Greg K Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4310938)
If half an onion is black with rot it is a rotten onion. A man is good or he is evil.

That's the philosophy that made Vince McMahon a billionaire.

Lady Melisandre would make for an interesting wrestler.
   10344. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4310939)
That sort of racialism is how we're biologically programmed to behave. Why do you hate science?


Tell me more about he biological programming that forces one to conflate the heritage of swarthy Hindis and natives of the Shanxi provence. How do such things express themselves in terms of neurological development? Where should we be placing our patch clamps?
   10345. Greg K Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4310949)
Tell me more about he biological programming that forces one to conflate the heritage of swarthy Hindis and natives of the Shanxi provence. How do such things express themselves in terms of neurological development? Where should we be placing our patch clamps?

I don't know about those other places, but I'd definitely vote for a guy from Provence. That place is awesome. It's just bocce all day and then top up your empties at the winery for 1 euro a bottle and your evening is all set. I could get behind a nation run on those principles.
   10346. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4310951)
If half an onion is black with rot it is a rotten onion. A man is good or he is evil.

That's the philosophy that made Vince McMahon a billionaire.

Yes but while there is no gray in Vince's world and someone may only be good or he may only be evil-
one can CHANGE and become the opposite.


Something tells me you haven't watched much wrestling. If Mohandas Gandhi had worked for Vince, after a 2-year run as a good guy, he'd be hitting opponents with his walking stick and blinding them with handfuls of untaxed salt.
   10347. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:14 PM (#4310956)
And yet in this very specific thread, with regard to the very specific discussion at hand, El Hombre mentions his shared support for Bobby Jindal (infant Hindi immigrant to America and raised in Louisiana) and Matt Fong (American-born of Chinese ancestory and raised in California). So what can we infer about how these quite dissimilar upbringings have drawn the support of this one particular voter? What sort of regionalist, rationalist interpretation undergirds such thought?
You don't have to guess, I've spelled it out for you. If you want to think that's racist, go ahead. Having experienced actual racism, your righteous indignation seems cute by comparison.

The best, most qualified candidate in the world isn't good enough for you because his family fled Somalia and yours fled Laos?
If the best, most qualified candidate in the world ran for office, I'd vote for that candidate. The best, most qualified candidate n the world didn't run against Matt Fong, though, Barbara Boxer did. I don't even vote for Boxer when she's running against a run-of-the-mill GOP candidate, so I don't have a reason to vote for her against someone whose I believe would be good for American politics.

In the absence of the best, most qualified candidate in the world, I'm going to vote to make government better, and that means trying to put an Asian-American in that group whenever I can.
   10348. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4310959)
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "inferior" in this case.


Well make your own criteria. Let's say you have a candidate who openly supports Creationism, believes demons cause illness, drinks heavily and often (but in a jovial Fallstaffian way, as far as you know), and cites from biblical authority that the dark skin of the Negro is the Mark of Cain. But - BUT - his great-grandparents and your great-uncle Beavis lived in the same township in Durka-durkastan 100 years ago. His opponent, an accomplished lass of high qualifications and impeccable character, displaying all the fine characteristics we associate with the pinnacle of Christian charity and selfless devotion, happens to have great-grandparents who were drunken Irish sots. For whom do you cast your vote?

Look, I've never voted for anyone simply because their name was Silverstein or they looked like my uncle Solomon or whatever -- but then, Jews became Americans long before I was born.


Asians became American before you were born too, just like everyone else.

Meanwhile my own grandfather, still living, tells of having his Army CO warn a group of recruits about the perfidious Jews who operated a boarding house and general store near base. Living in Mississippi for 7 years I learned all sorts of terrible things the Jews were involved in - international prostitution rings, engineering recessions for profit, puppeteering wars, and of course international communism. When they finally got around to the Jews running Hollywood I could stand no more and angrily retorted that if I had any say in Hollywood, do you think they'd have made those awful new Star Wars movies?

Ah, but you say, both my grandfather and I were immune from anti-Jewish sentiment because of our non-ethnic looks (he blonde-haired and blue-eyed, me small-nosed and vaguely nondescript)! And indeed, so long as we never mentioned anything about our religion, or invited anyone to our home, or was witnessed nibbling a shred of Matzoh on Passover, and always had a ready excuse for why were weren't attending church, I guess we were OK.

Playing the "who had it worse in 20th century America" game is a fruitless and self-defeating endeavor. If you want to aspire to American ideals you need to jettison the idea that simply being a member of your "group" is some sort of inherent mark of superiority to be championed above all else. At least, that's the way I see it, and the way such things were discussed in my grandparents' household where I grew up. I suppose this sort of mindset is why so many Jews supported the Civil Rights movement.

By the by, Grandpa Redneck turns 100 in January and just gave up his driver's license this year at the insistence of my grandmother, a spry lass of 95. As much as I'd like to hope genetics created their health and longevity I sadly suspect their lifetime abstinence from drinking, smoking, and sleeping late probably had more to do with it, neatly sabotaging me.
   10349. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4310961)
I don't know about those other places, but I'd definitely vote for a guy from Provence. That place is awesome. It's just bocce all day and then top up your empties at the winery for 1 euro a bottle and your evening is all set. I could get behind a nation run on those principles.


DRAT IT.

You win this round, but I'll be back with a malaprop that will make your head spin.
   10350. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4310963)
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "inferior" in this case.


Black.
   10351. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4310965)
You know where fascism often lies?


In the narrows between my boot and your face, obviously.
   10352. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4310970)
yr

if it provides any hope i have drunk a river of gin and smoked several packs of pall malls daily between ages 16-62 and though i had the stroke a while back am 79 and to the disappointment of my enemies don't look to be dying anytime soon.

sorry sam
   10353. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4310972)
If you want to aspire to American ideals you need to jettison the idea that simply being a member of your "group" is some sort of inherent mark of superiority to be championed above all else.
I agree. I've never articulated the idea that my "group" is superior and should be championed above all else. I just want my group to be considered an equal to everyone else's groups. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen in real life, and just shouting "Bad American!" isn't a very useful real world solution.
   10354. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4310973)
You don't have to guess, I've spelled it out for you. If you want to think that's racist, go ahead.


It is racist. That's OK though, so are some very funny jokes.

Having experienced actual racism, your righteous indignation seems cute by comparison.


You are to be commended for being, I dunno, a credit to your race or something. I'm sure I couldn't possibly understand your victimhood.
   10355. Chicago Joe Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4310976)
Poppycock: A less well known nickname for Bill Clinton.


Bush I, I think. (only used by Bar, though.)
   10356. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4310977)
yr

not to begin some philosophical discussion but do you consider diversity programs racist? companies all over the u.s. are working to promote diversity in their vendor base and providing preferential consideration for businesses owned by women, veterans and people of color. if a business owned by an asian-american who wins a contract with a fortune 500 company because of his race make the vendor review process racist if his cost model wasn't the lowest?

i think when folks start to get too broad in their assessment of things like racism it undermines branding actual racism as racism
   10357. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4310978)
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "inferior" in this case.

Black.


Oh they wouldn't have to be completely black. Sicilians would qualify, for example. Or the Irish.
   10358. Chicago Joe Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4310979)
yr

if it provides any hope i have drunk a river of gin and smoked several packs of pall malls daily between ages 16-62 and though i had the stroke a while back am 79 and to the disappointment of my enemies don't look to be dying anytime soon.

sorry sam


With your permission, I will forward this to my wife: 25 more years of debauchery for me!
   10359. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4310980)
chicago

i heartily encourage folks drinking gin. just not mine
   10360. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4310986)
Not quite. It means that if they're both from the same state, that state can't vote in the Electoral College.


Can't vote at all, or can't vote for the two guys from the state?
   10361. Greg K Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4310988)
i heartily encourage folks drinking gin. just not mine

I once had a religious studies prof who claimed he would turn a deaf ear to all requests for extensions or re-submissions no matter what the threat, plea, or bribe...provided none of us found out his brand of gin.
   10362. SteveF Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4310989)
i heartily encourage folks drinking gin. just not mine


The hipsters are drinking gin these days ever since 'the blogs' started shaming people for drinking vodka.
   10363. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4310992)
not to begin some philosophical discussion but do you consider diversity programs racist?


They can be. It would depend on how they were implemented, what the criteria were, and why they were implemented in the first place.

There's an excellent documentary called "King of the Hill", perhaps you're familiar with it. Set in picturesque Arlen, Texas, the protagonist longs to belong to an exclusive country club but upon examination discovers he is not qualified to join for reasons unknown to him. The real reason? All the members of the club are Asian (Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian IIRC) and he was "white".

Unbeknownst to our protagonist (let's call him "Hank") the country club was negotiating with the PGA to host a golf tournament, a very prestigious position. However, the PGA had heard rumors that the club was run in a racially exclusive manner and was reluctant to commit to such a potentially damaging PR hit should that prove to be true; to qualify for the tournament, the country club would have to demonstrate some diversity in their membership. The club asked "Hank" to join but to conceal their true motivations they staged a pretend lottery through which new members would be inducted. All of the lottery tickets listed either "Hank's" name, or "the white guy".

When "Hank" discovered the subterfuge he made the decision to forego his much-desired membership to the country club rather than submit to overt racial tokenism. This heartwarming resolution concluded with several of "Hank's" friends drinking beer in the back alley behind their houses.

The moral of the story? I'd like to think it was this: "You can't just pick and choose which laws to follow. Sure I'd like to tape a baseball game without the express written consent of major league baseball, but that's just not the way it works."

companies all over the u.s. are working to promote diversity in their vendor base


Would only contracting with, say, black-owned companies be an example of diversity, or the opposite?

i think when folks start to get too broad in their assessment of things like racism it undermines branding actual racism as racism


I'm not afraid of the conversation. The only reason many longtime posters here know who I am is because I had the temerity to point out Jack Johnson was an ####### who screwed a generation of black heavyweight boxers.
   10364. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4310996)
The Best and Worst run states in the US.


Well I would disagree about some of the methodology but its nice to see that California can keep its ranking 2 years in a row.
   10365. robinred Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4310999)
The only reason many longtime posters here know who I am is because I had the temerity to point out Jack Johnson


You did put on quite a show in that thread, but I know who you are because of the stuff you said about Michael Jordan in the NBA Thread and the stuff you always say about Selig and the Yankees' luxury tax payments.
   10366. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4311002)
yr

if it provides any hope i have drunk a river of gin and smoked several packs of pall malls daily between ages 16-62 and though i had the stroke a while back am 79 and to the disappointment of my enemies don't look to be dying anytime soon.


That's good to know Harvey. As a result of being raised by my grandparents I internalized many of their habits without overt consideration, and non-drinking/smoking happened to be one of them. In fact, I only started "drinking" proper (as opposed to the sort of drinking that entailed a single glass of champagne at a wedding or New Year's Eve or something) last year. I'm not very good at it, but I'm getting better. I appear to have an inordinate fondness for tequila.
   10367. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4311003)
I know who you are because of the stuff you said about Michael Jordan in the NBA Thread


Come on, the guy was a selfish ballhog and everyone knows it. I don't like to quote Deadspin but they hit that nail on the head - Michael Jordan is the black Daniel Plainview.
   10368. SteveF Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4311006)
Come on, the guy was a selfish ballhog and everyone knows it.


It's true. Half the guys on the floor used to beg him to pass the ball to someone else.

They all just happened to be on the other team.
   10369. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4311007)
Playing the "who had it worse in 20th century America" game is a fruitless and self-defeating endeavor.


We can stipulate that a lot of people had it shitty in the 20th century in America. But it's also a fact that our grandfathers had Jews to vote for, and el Hombre's often didn't have Asian-Americans to vote for. There are always evil ####### who think we all get emails from George Soros and Rahm Emmanuel telling us how to rob Real Americans of their money. But as a practical matter we've been included in the American political process at a high level for a long time in a way that Hispanics, Asians and black folks generally haven't. Pretending otherwise doesn't help your case. Neither does playing the "Oh, my ancestors were crapped on, too!" card, which is totally what you're doing while trying to claim that you're not.

There is something to be said for opening doors and leaving them ajar for the next guy to walk through.

The promotion of ethnic values and ideas is a road to fascism when it's used by a majority group to define an out group as "other". The problem isn't with ethnic pride per se, but with othering. Which is what calling things "un-American" is all about. America is too big and complicated to be boiled it down to that sort of talk, and doing so is the first step on the road to fascism.
   10370. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4311013)
Playing the "who had it worse in 20th century America" game is a fruitless and self-defeating endeavor.


In 21st century America, straight white men are lapping the field.
   10371. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4311017)
sorry sam


Harv, if I want you dead, you'll get dead soon enough. You know as well as I do that neither of us play by these foolish little boys' rules.
   10372. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:44 PM (#4311018)
His opponent, an accomplished lass of high qualifications and impeccable character, displaying all the fine characteristics we associate with the pinnacle of Christian charity and selfless devotion, happens to have great-grandparents who were drunken Irish sots.

Depends on which types of Irish. I am not voting for any Ulsterman or their descendants.
   10373. Steve Treder Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4311019)
In 21st century America, straight white men are lapping the field.

We're victims. Helpless and pitiful VICTIMS, I tell you.
   10374. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4311020)
We can stipulate that a lot of people had it shitty in the 20th century in America. But it's also a fact that our grandfathers had Jews to vote for, and el Hombre's often didn't have Asian-Americans to vote for.


Why the qualifier, "often"? Either they did or they didn't. How would you quantify this?

But as a practical matter we've been included in the American political process at a high level for a long time in a way that Hispanics, Asians and black folks generally haven't.


I'm not sure I understand how this ties in with the conversation at-large. Can you simplify for me - what ethnic groups may use ethnicity as the sole factor in determining political endorsement, to the exclusion of all other factors, without being subject to criticism for racism? "Hispanics, Asians, and black folks" as per your 10369? What about Jews? Is is OK to criticize a Jew for saying "I will never vote for goyim"? Could someone openly claim to refuse to vote for any Muslim, Mormon, Atheist, or, I dunno, Hawaiian without criticism, or do you have to wait to know who made the claim before passing judgement?

Do you think Colin Powell was being coy when he claimed to have voted for Obama based on policy despite his longstanding Republican credentials? Were conservative critics correct in affirming that Powell was being dishonest and only backed Obama out of black solidarity?

Pretending otherwise doesn't help your case. Neither does playing the "Oh, my ancestors were crapped on, too!" card, which is totally what you're doing while trying to claim that you're not.


Which ethnic groups are allowed to mention their historical mistreatment in 20th century America without being criticized for playing some sort of "race card"?

There is something to be said for opening doors and leaving them ajar for the next guy to walk through.


Who claimed otherwise?

The promotion of ethnic values and ideas is a road to fascism when it's used by a majority group to define an out group as "other"


I find this sort of lawyerly parsing preposterous, because the offense being considered here isn't exclusion or "othering" or otherwise diminishing the shared unity we have as humanity, it's only doing so "when it's used by a majority group". In other words, we need to first make a determination as to numbers and demographics before we consider the appropriateness of the action. You can't judge which group - Catholic or Protestant - in Ireland was being inappropriate in their exclusionary behavior until you look at the census? Balderdash.

Which is what calling things "un-American" is all about. America is too big and complicated to be able to boil it down to that sort of talk


Saying there are no American values and that nothing can be considered "un-American" in light of our history is just ridiculous. Would appointing an Iran-style Supreme Leader-theocrat be un-American? I would say "of course, we are a secular democratic republic that respects no religious authority as government" but you seem to think that's hunky-dory, or at least if you think it's "wrong" you'd have to couch it in terms that don't emphasize its incompatibility with American history and ideals.

There's nothing wrong with labeling things un-American on its face. You can label things as such incorrectly (or even offensively) but it flies in the face of our national heritage and unity to simply claim that such designations cannot exist.
   10375. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4311021)
We're victims. Helpless and pitiful VICTIMS, I tell you.


You'd be amazed at the ass you can score at a Democratic Party "neighborhood meetup."
   10376. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4311022)
In 21st century America, straight white men are lapping the field.

We're victims. Helpless and pitiful VICTIMS, I tell you.


Well well well, we found ourselves a 47%-er. Where are your bootstraps, lad?
   10377. Tripon Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4311023)
10364. spankz Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4310996)
The Best and Worst run states in the US.


Well I would disagree about some of the methodology but its nice to see that California can keep its ranking 2 years in a row.


Its funny that the five best states are the states nobody wants to live in.
   10378. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4311029)
The more interesting question about 21st century America, by far, is who has it the best.

   10379. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4311030)
Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan can't remember anything apparently.


Just another reason why I will never use B of A again.
   10380. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4311033)
The more interesting question about 21st century America, by far, is who has it the best.


The people with the money, Ray.
   10381. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4311035)
The more interesting question about 21st century America, by far, is who has it the best.


Rich white dudes. It's not an interesting question, because you can answer it with three words and no caveats.
   10382. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4311036)
I find this sort of lawyerly parsing preposterous


Dude, you're the one who said that thinking originating in ethnicity is the road to fascism, not othering. It's not lawyerly parsing. It's called thinking.
   10383. zonk Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:14 PM (#4311038)
i heartily encourage folks drinking gin. just not mine




The hipsters are drinking gin these days ever since 'the blogs' started shaming people for drinking vodka.


Which sorta ticks me off...

I'm pushing 40 now, but started my own love affair with gin back in college... I never acquired any taste for bourbon or scotch, but learned relatively early that vodka really only served one purpose: getting yourself snookered more quickly than splitting a case of beer with friends. My Polish and Russian heritage forgive me, but I don't think there's any spirit more pointless (aside from the impact on motor skills and judgment) than vodka... and the only difference I've found between the top shelf and well vodkas is the size of the headache.

My quest to find a cocktail one could just enjoy one or five of led me to gin.

The upside of gin's revival is that over the last decade or so, I've found it much easier to find bars and liquor stores stocked with more than just your standard fare -- whereas Hendricks was once a relative treat, it's now pretty rare that I can't find it, whether stocking up at the booze star or grabbing a drink at the local bar. This is a good thing.

The downside is that I know the ruination of this fine spirit is just around the corner, as the demand will morph into all manner of 'flavored' gins and such for the bandwagon jumpers... which is fine, but sometimes this tends to squeeze the old standards off the shelves. This is a bad thing.

...and now that it's after 6, I think I shall pour myself a double.
   10384. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:33 PM (#4311046)
Dude, you're the one who said that thinking originating in ethnicity is the road to fascism


Homeboy, here's what I actually wrote:,

You know where fascism often lies? In the promotion of ethnic heritage as paramount above other considerations. How could a good Spaniard vote for a Basque?

And it's true. Deferring to ethnicity as paramount is absolutely "othering". You're making a distinction that isn't there.

. It's not lawyerly parsing. It's called thinking.


If you want to plant a flag on that distinction I've no interest in making that an argument, although I'm not convinced it's actually good thinking.
   10385. Steve Treder Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:35 PM (#4311048)
Rich white dudes. It's not an interesting question, because you can answer it with three words and no caveats.

Indeed.
   10386. formerly dp Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:43 PM (#4311053)
We have a place in town that specializes in pre-prohibition drinks, so tons of gin-based cocktails. I wish I liked the stuff, but just can't get into it. Too much of the cheap stuff when I was younger soured me on it.
   10387. Tilden Katz Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:44 PM (#4311054)
All you people thinking that the Republicans are dead probably have no idea that Bishop Rick is thinking of running again in 2016.
   10388. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:45 PM (#4311055)
Rich white dudes. It's not an interesting question, because you can answer it with three words and no caveats.


Rich anyone, really. I don't think Ann Cox Chambers or Russell Simmons or Alex Rodriguez have lives substantially different in luxury from Ruppert Murdoch, David Geffen, or Jason Giambi, except to the extent their personal preferences play a role.
   10389. Tilden Katz Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4311057)
I think "rich" is a little vague. When in history have rich people not had it the best?
   10390. formerly dp Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:49 PM (#4311058)
This story on the drone program came out last week.

“One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of some of the decisions that we’re making,” Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart in an appearance on “The Daily Show” on Oct. 18.
Paraphrasing: "If they'd write rules, I'd follow them, but until then, I'll ####### kill whatever ############# I want whenever I ####### want to. B!tches."
   10391. Gotham Dave Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4311059)
The French Revolution wasn’t a particularly awesome time to be rich.
   10392. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4311060)
It was if you weren't in France.
   10393. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: November 27, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4311068)
I don't know where else to put this, but it's the funniest thing I've read in a while.
   10394. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 27, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4311073)
Wait a minute, there's a backlash against vodka now?
   10395. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 27, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4311083)
biff

yes, since always
   10396. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4311086)
Vodka is pointless unless you're literally in Russia.

Gin is a good cocktail drink, but it does bad things to my head in the morning.

Bourbon is God's on drink.
   10397. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 27, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4311087)
sam

sorry to hear you are a candy8ss

but bourbon is a good runnerup. seems everyone has a bourbon these days. which is your favorite?
   10398. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 27, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4311088)
since we are discussing drinking, always a worthy topic, here is a gift idea

'To Have and Have Another: A Hemingway Cocktail Companion'

so there you go
   10399. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: November 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4311090)
For sipping - Hudson Baby is very good (but technically not made in Kentucky.) You can't go wrong with Woodford Reserve either.

For mixing, Bulliett makes fine whiskeys all around, although I generally mix with their rye rather than bourbons.
   10400. just plain joe Posted: November 27, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4311092)
Vodka is pointless unless you're literally in Russia.

Gin is a good cocktail drink, but it does bad things to my head in the morning.

Bourbon is God's on drink.


Absolutely, never give a redneck clear liquor.
Page 104 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(257 - 9:45pm, Apr 24)
Last: Wet Willie

NewsblogToronto Star: Blue Jays pave way for grass at the Rogers Centre
(17 - 9:42pm, Apr 24)
Last: Gonfalon B.

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(513 - 9:39pm, Apr 24)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogMichael Pineda ejected from Red Sox game after pine tar discovered on neck
(123 - 9:37pm, Apr 24)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogJonah Keri Extended Interview | Video | Late Night with Seth Meyers | NBC
(14 - 9:30pm, Apr 24)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4-24-2014
(50 - 9:25pm, Apr 24)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogNY Times: The Upshot: Up Close on Baseball’s Borders
(58 - 9:22pm, Apr 24)
Last: Esoteric

NewsblogMatt Williams: No problem with Harper's two-strike bunting
(29 - 9:19pm, Apr 24)
Last: boteman digs the circuit clout

NewsblogConnie Marrero, oldest Major Leaguer, dies at 102
(18 - 9:09pm, Apr 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2651 - 8:49pm, Apr 24)
Last: zenbitz

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(234 - 8:44pm, Apr 24)
Last: zack

NewsblogCalcaterra: Blogger Murray Chass attacks me for bad reporting, ignores quotes, evidence in doing so
(38 - 8:41pm, Apr 24)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogThe Five “Acts” of Ike Davis’s Career, and Why Trading Ike Was a Mistake
(68 - 8:24pm, Apr 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogColiseum Authority accuses Athletics of not paying rent
(27 - 8:08pm, Apr 24)
Last: Steve Treder

NewsblogIndians Usher Says He Was Fired for Refusing to Wear Pro-Sin Tax Sticker
(23 - 8:07pm, Apr 24)
Last: eddieot

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.0303 seconds
52 querie(s) executed