|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
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
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (3381 - 12:47pm, May 20)Last: Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious TwiddleNewsblog: Heyman: Miggy-Trout debate rages on, but Cabrera wins all here (31 - 12:47pm, May 20)Last: tshipmanNewsblog: Rosenthal: Ax to fall soon for LA's Mattingly (35 - 12:43pm, May 20)Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)Newsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (925 - 12:42pm, May 20)Last: Shooty is in the Trust TreeNewsblog: The Changing Gigantics of SF | Bill James Online (7 - 12:32pm, May 20)Last: Steve TrederNewsblog: MLB’s Best and Worst Catchers at Framing Pitches - Bloomberg Sports (4 - 12:29pm, May 20)Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)Newsblog: Sherman: Mets' roster of rubbish makes it impossible to evaluate Collins (9 - 12:22pm, May 20)Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)Newsblog: Cafardo: Dustin Pedroia the best second baseman in MLB? (112 - 12:18pm, May 20)Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 20, 2013 (4 - 12:15pm, May 20)Last: Dock Ellis on AcidNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (964 - 12:09pm, May 20)Last: BooeyNewsblog: Holmes: Where does Miguel Cabrera rank among Tiger greats? (41 - 12:07pm, May 20)Last: BooeyNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-20-2013 (8 - 11:59am, May 20)Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants toNewsblog: BBTF SOFTBALL GAME IN NEW YORK--AUG 17 (303 - 11:57am, May 20)Last: Ray (RDP)Newsblog: Draft Features Rarest of Prospects: Redheads (103 - 11:26am, May 20)Last: gef the talking mongooseNewsblog: Hal Steinbrenner calls tickets 'affordable' (26 - 10:50am, May 20)Last: BourbonSamurai, vassal of the Harpsburg Empire
|
|
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.
Yes.
Fox News was up in arms (pun fully intended) when the Black Panthers were opening doors for old white ladies at polling places. Image if they had needed to holster their gun before reaching for the door!
You can kill them all. Which we haven't done.
Also, I'm not defending our actions, either. The fact that a bunch of folks had it worse 75 years ago would be pretty lousy solace if you're getting shot every day.
No, this is an argument leftists put in the mouths of 2nd Amendment civil libertarians. The right to bear arms is about liberty, not self-defense. Honestly, 8590 is an absolute train wreck of a post.
I do not believe you are speaking about the same people.
Also, as a resident, Szym himself argued vehemently for self-defense as the primary reason for gun ownership in places like Baltimore. No one but him put self-defense in his mouth as that reason.
You certainly can, but not without bankrupting your country, as you are learning.
Civil rights liberals don't give a #### about are still civil rights. This has been explained to you.
I think it would be far cheaper to kill them all (NOT saying that it ought be policy). Indiscriminate attacks can be launched with weapons that are much less expensive in terms of human and dollar cost (to the attacking country, anyway).
I am addressing the arguments conservatives make, not the arguments libertarians make. Lassus was correct. And the arguments I discussed have been made by many, many conservatives, including my own relatives, NRA spokesmen, and conservatives on this board and others I frequent.
So long as all sides are putting positions into each others mouths/brains I am sure we can make fine progress in this discussion.
You may want to inform the GOP and the NRA-ILA, which seems to support the GOP's official playform.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/gop-adopts-strongly-pro-gun-platform.aspx
The GOP platform never mentions liberty but its second sentence is: "We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen's God-given right of self-defense."
EDIT: NRA-ILM adds: The inclusion of specific issues, such as the right to self-defense, opposition to the semi-auto ban, and support for interstate Right-to-Carry reciprocity makes this the most pro-Second Amendment position ever included in a major party platform.
What in the bloody hell are you talking about? I quoted YOU saying "civil libertarians" and Bitter Mouse saying "conservatives", and said those are two different groups. I didn't say a freaking thing about who gives a #### about what.
Also, in regards to the other part, are you still saying people aren't using self-defense as a reason for the right to bear arms? I don't even think self-defense is a bad argument, at all. To say that argument isn't being made in regards to the 2nd amendment is pretty odd.
No, you're not. Furthermore, you included an attack on libertarianism in your nutty little screed AND conflated self-defense and liberty. I wouldn't expect the standards of academic scholarship to apply to a BBTF post, but that was just an abject mess.
Conservatives typically ARE civil libertarians on the subject of 2nd Amendment rights.
It's a good argument for public consumption, it plays well with most people. But the 2nd Amendment is about much more than self-defense.
I don't think I did that in this sub-thread (well maybe way back when I quoted the full text of the 2nd Amendment, but I don't think since). I am trying to stay out (mostly) of the Gun rights debate, because it is not a hot button of mine.
Anyway I have lost track of where we are in this debate and have not added much in any event, but I will gladly sign up for the generic Liberal position.
I think this is a truly terrible solution for a truly terrible problem. I can't decide if I need to first agree with your disgust in the problem or sound off against the alleged solution.
EDIT: I think I would rather protest the militarization of our police first. Then suggest your solution is off base.
Hyperbole much?
Fair enough (and I edited my entry because I'm a busybody), but I think plenty of conservatives would balk at self-identifying the way you decided to identify them.
It's a good argument for public consumption, it plays well with most people. But the 2nd Amendment is about much more than self-defense.
That's all well and good, but if you say that argument is being put, by liberals, in the mouths of... well, whatever group you want to distinghuish, that's up to you, you're simply wrong. I cited Szym, and the list could go on. People make the argument, and often. If you think that argument is wrong, that's not the same as giving liberals the credit/blame for it being made by conservatives and gun-rights advocates.
Who says so? And what's his authority? And does that "much more" encompass the negative as well as the positive?
Notwithstanding the advisability of shooting at a SWAT team (my advice; don't), no-knock raids are a travesty. Both that they occur with anything close to the frequency that they do and in the almost complete lack of consequences for those who manage to botch them.
I understand why the militarization of the police is taking place; bigger budgets for paramilitary goodies and empire building for local officials. Fun for the cops too; they get to play dress up in expensive "tactical" gubbins and break ####. What I don't understand is why nobody on the left OR the right seems to care much about it.
Thanks for confiding that. Now, we need to know where you live so we make sure we're not anywhere near there.
I'm not saying it would be my preferred course of events by any means, but if it means the difference between myself and/or my family dying, I'd do it.
I guess it depends on your definition of hyberbole. Botched Military Police Raids
Because, like the Patriot Act, it's hard to maintain a state of righteous dudgeon when it seems to be almost entirely based on that which is foreign to most everyone's experience.
I bet, blind ante, that if you took a cross-section of a typical NRA meeting and asked them if, say, the Black Panthers should be allowed to arm up with military grade weaponry, they'd be less than 100% in support of that.
Going back to 1985, "death of an innocent" has 47 results. "Almost routine" they are not.
Not to mention that you'll be in the pokey forever if you open fire.
But i am thrilled to see a show on TV challenging the USA as benevolent saintly nation shtick.
First, this is non-responsive to my original point.
Second, in America no group is 100% on anything, except, apparently, Obama voters in certain areas.
Third, I'd be shocked if a typical NRA meeting (is that like a "typical white person?") would 100% support any Americans being allowed to access military armaments. The NRA is not the boogeyman most lefties seem to imagine it is.
Such as this death of an innocent result:
Or this one:
Or this one:
Or this:
There are more, and there are others that are greyer.
I may be naive but I don't know that this is true. Generally (to my very limited knowledge) the law is fairly friendly to people defending their home. So a no knock raid I am not sure any survivors would naturally be convicted of much. But IANAL.
Where have you been for the last 55 years--just to keep it to the period since castigating America has gone mainstream?
You'll be outnumbered, outgunned, and fighting adrenaline-loaded men wearing body armor. If you open fire, you'll almost certainly be killed or seriously wounded.
Of course, how's somebody just waking up to the sound of a home invasion at 2AM supposed to know it's the police as opposed to criminals? Especially some poor law abiding bastard who just happens to live in or near a bad neighborhood? That's why no-knock raids are so pernicious (and dangerous) and should only be reserved for cases where public safety is truly threatened.
No, you will most likely end up dead, as post 8633 points out. Even non-SWAT police officers are likely to open fire if confronted by someone holding a firearm. Actually shooting at the police just makes it that much more likely you end up a well ventilated corpse.
That was small-L libertarianism. Certainly conservatives depict their view of the Second Amendment as conducive to liberty. They just don't mean the same thing by that that a Libertarian would. Similarly a conservative can support democratic governance without supporting Democratic governance.
Not sure what you mean here. The freedom that conservatives believe is enshrined in the Second Amendment is the freedom of self-defense. You appear to have a different opinion (it's difficult to tell). I suspect you would argue that liberty is an end in itself, rather than a means to an end: a well-ordered society (conservative) or a just society (liberal). Which is fine, that makes you a big-L libertarian, but I wasn't addressing that particular philosophy.
If you have any specific, substantive arguments to make I would be happy to consider them.
Where have you been for the last 55 years--just to keep it to the period since castigating America has gone mainstream?
So are we talking about Amerikkka, or are we talking about the country that nearly half the country now wants to secede from? It's easy to get confused when half the outside world hates us, the other half of the outside world wants to live here, and nearly half our own country wants out. Has anyone here got a scorecard just to keep it all straight?
1. You have links to this stuff.
2. Are you claiming these people would have been shot if they had not pulled a gun? There are ways of contesting inappropriate police behavior other than pulling a gun, no?
3. You do understand that any protocol is not perfect--unless your way of doing things is simply not doing anything. Mistakes will be made, whatever the policy is.
4. So, are these cases on the margins, mistakes (if they are mistakes) or are you saying there is this secret KGB force in the US that is not accountable in any way?
Twinkies Maker Hostess Going Out of Business, CEO Blames Union Strike
The last sentence is the most puzzling. Why should people who walk away from their jobs be eligible for unemployment benefits?
This seems like a perfect example of the welfare state being far too generous. If you're a low-skill worker in 2012 America and you not only don't fear your job disappearing but strike your job out of existence, the "safety net" might be a little too safe.
False.
It wasn't a concession because I never claimed otherwise. You either confused me with someone else or you're bad at reading.
Especially Joe, who apparently has not been consuming enough of their product.
/snark
What sort of blame lies on the workers? Did they suck at baking? Were the drivers constantly getting into wrecks?
Here's the problem though. You've upped the certainty of your death to something approaching 100%. You're dealing with a trained SWAT team in body armor that is expecting violent resistance and is trained to deal with it.
EDIT: Cokes of course.
EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't the "case closed" that a poster characterized it as--rather, your admission that some bans are justifiable was a clarification that the argument wasn't about principles, but rather practicalities. Where to set the price, to use the old whore analogy.
Actually we have. Won't surprise anybody that the SQ was involved. Can't find the details (there's a lot of noise in this kind of search) but memory says it was a couple of drywallers in a Laval hotel.
And for Rants, there's also the case of Basil Parasiris, who killed a cop in a botched drug raid.
Yeah, you can play with my tits and finger #### me. That way I can still claim I'm a a virgin.
Right. A gun can be useful in self-defense provided you're a decent shot, cool under pressure, have some warning and are up against an aggressor with approximately the same numbers, firepower and training. Waking up groggy and then aiming - or, rather, holding up - a .38 you fired a few times a year ago against a SWAT assault force is suicide. I don't like these types of raids. But, if force is the answer - and I don't really think it is - then the way to do it is to assemble your own team of guys and perform no-knock raids on the chief of police or director of SWAT. i.e. launch a guerrilla war. It's also crazy but has the feature that it isn't guaranteed instantaneous death.
Trying to defend yourself with a handgun against these guys is crazy. What you do is lay down, obey orders and, at the first opportunity, call your lawyer who calls the press.
Hmm. I was thinking you sound like a guy who needs to get laid.
Or, what's more likely, cops a plea.
But you thinking it doesn't get me any closer to a solution.
I disagree with the last part. It's not at all a sellout of Second Amendment principles to deny convicted murderers or the mentally deranged from possessing firearms. As with the rest of the Constitution, the Second Amendment isn't a suicide pact.
Are you asking these questions to me or to Rants? Because they seem like questions for him.
Yes, what's logical and cohesive, I again ask. And Joe doesn't get to go back to his pristince assertions. He should address all the objections he's avoided and evaded.
Or, what's more likely, cops a plea.
Well, I am assume a "pure" accident. I'm probably being naive, but if the SWAT kicks my door down and searches my house, they're not going to find anything. If I can offer not selling my story to the press, I bet I end up getting off for no more than repairs to my house. It sucks and, in a just world, the SWAT would pay me. But I don't think I'd end up in jail. As would be the best case scenario if I pull a gun on them.
But you thinking it doesn't get me any closer to a solution.
Heh.
The Twinkie will return. Tastykake is a regional appeal product and it survived, the Hostess has national appeal and someone will buy it and bring it back. Might have to wait a little bit, but it'll happen.
What, eat a ####### Hostess Twinkie? That shit's made from rat's blood, cow pus and formaldehyde.
What about grenade launchers?
***
Which objections are those?
Well, #1 is to the poster who posted those instances in 8633. The rest can be considered at-large requests, to the poster or anyone else.
No, I don't think I'm going to play along with that.
Well, that makes two of us. Last night, you (oddly) declared "case closed," but now you're claiming there are all sorts of unanswered questions. I'm not going to re-read 200 comments to find whatever it is that you're complaining about.
This is so naive to beg the question of your sanity. If you successfully defended your family from a no-knock raid you'd be sent to the electric chair as a cop-killer. More or less ever last time.
This thread is so ####### disturbing. Apparently the best way to deal with out of control militarist police state brutality randomly killing citizens is to lay down and take it up the ass instead.
I'm not following the point you are trying to make.
Also worth noting, from earlier this year:
Clearly, this is another company sunk by the greed of its rank-and-file workers.
Exactly.
Which is no small task with a handgun, and requires regular training to maintain. Th upside is that your attacker will usually be equally untrained. A highly succesful strategy if threatened by someone with a handgun, seriously, is to run. It's really f'ing hard to shoot a moving target with a pistol, or fire one accurately while moving, and the more distance the harder it gets.
Since you've opposed gun rights in this and other prior discussions, what are your solutions? A petition? A letter to the editor?
Are you saying you believe these ############# #####? The same cowardly peices of #### that are running around tasing kids and old ladies? I don't think there is any member of society I despise more than the power tripping cop. Absolute scum of the earth.
When you're awoken from a dead sleep in the peace and supposed sanctuary of your own home, I would think your first instinct would be to defend yourself and your family, especially if your wife screaming "don't shoot me" was the first voice you heard.
I was simplyfying in my mind the situation when I said I'd start shooting, but this is one of those situations where, as usual, the state gets the benefit of the doubt and the regular guy its bent over and reamed.
Group of masked men smash into your home in the middle of the night and threaten your family. You really gonna stop and ask "wait, are you guys cops?"
Have you forgotten Andy? Not only am I conspiracy kook guy, I'm also organic gardener guy - I wouldn't eat a Twinkie if you paid me (up to a limit of course).
I'm assuming this turns into semantics over what constitutes "a sellout of Second Amendment principles".
So do you think firing at a SWAT team will actually help you survive? Because I was replying to/underlining this (which I hope you understand is sarcasm):
Getting back to our original discussion, do you still claim that it is "almost routine for SWAT teams to bust into homes and kill someone" after the link you provided showed only 47 incidents in 27 years?
Particularly given that it's increasingly common for home invaders to impersonate police in order to try and gain the homeowners' compliance.
See here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.
For the record, I do not own any firearms.
I said as much earlier. It's foolish to shoot it out with a SWAT team, but how do you know you're facing a SWAT team when it's 2AM and people are smashing your place up? S'why no-knock raids should be abolished except in extremely rare circumstances.
"Overpenetration" is a really awful thing. You can pretty easily take out a neighbor or family member, and it reduces the tactical shotgun advantage of being able to deliver an incapacitating blow with imprecise aim.
Does "someone" in these examples include household pets? Because that happens at least a couple times a week, every week.
What part of "without restriction" can't you understand?
I can't beleive that you are actually trying to marginalize how fundamentally wrong this is. One or two, or maybe even half a dozen incidents over that time period could excuse a rational person for believing they're just isolated incidents, but not 47. And that doesn't inlclude the 144 other times the wrong household was raided without somebody getting killed. The stats aren't broken down to show how many of those resulted in an injury to an innocent person, or the death of their dog(s).
Edited typo
A lawyer can bargain for you, and can take a plea for you in some cases, with your permission - but a lawyer can't just say "Welp, you're taking this plea for resisting arrest just as soon as my check clears" and then make you do that. "Copping a plea" is a thing defendants do, not lawyers.
Have you forgotten Andy? Not only am I conspiracy kook guy, I'm also organic gardener guy - I wouldn't eat a Twinkie if you paid me (up to a limit of course).
Okay, you're forgiven for whatever you've done, which by now I've forgotten.
I'd say that the Hostess Company is a perfect metaphor for a large segment of modern day corporate America: An empire built on formaldehyde-preserved non-food, with executives who raid the company treasury in anticipation of bankruptcy while asking workers to take a pay cut. Where are the SWAT teams when they might really be put to good use?
I've said it explicitly. Putting aside the grenade launchers, there are no non-deranged people who believe the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess, e.g., a nuclear weapon.
Not really. It was never understood that, e.g., convicted murderers had a right to keep firearms in their jail cells. For Second Amendment supporters to "concede" such things doesn't put us on any slippery slope to a "sellout of Second Amendment principles."
Those people are deranged.
It appears you're trying to do some shtick here but your aim seems to be a little off.
Simmer down Rambo. A 12 gauge shotgun with 3.5" magnum slugs is overkill for a home defense weapon, unless you're defending the homestead from cave bears or space marines. Slugs are inaccurate, prone to overpenetration, and 3.5" magnum shells will probably break your eardrums (and shoulder) if fired indoors. Plus the recoil will hurt any chances of making accurate follow-up shots.
A 20 gauge with #2 buckshot and standard 2 3/4" shells is perfectly adequate. A 12 gauge using similar shells is fine too, but most people who don't shoot regularly find the 20 gauge to be easier to handle and shoot.
It seems disingenuous to say that this is the argument that the GOP makes to convince the public, but it's not what most people who support Second Amendment rights believe. If this is the primary argument that resonates with the public, it's what most people believe.
I have a Saiga AK style semi-auto 12 (count me as a lib who likes limited gun ownership). First two rounds are birdshot - they would make you seriously regret coming over uninvited, but not likely to be lethal, then the heavier stuff. Removes some of the threat of going overboard before fully knowing the situation, while permitting immediate response to stimuli.
Of course. I'm not criticizing them. I'm criticizing the folks here who are saying that if the SWAT kicked down their door they'd take them on with a handgun. Obviously, if I'm awakened by my door coming down, I'll react the way these folks did. And I'll probably die.
Agreed all 'round on the shotgun as primary home defense. The wife has a 20 gauge and I have a 12. The basic plan in the event of home invasion is a meet up place that is easily defensible. We hunker down and allow the perps to take anything they want, except us. I can probably handle that - assuming I get to the meetup place. I know my shooting abilities and stalking them through the house is not going to work.
IF the SWAT kicks down your door, you're really just ######. I don't advocate taking it but I also don't advocate trying to win an unwinnable fight. You may not have a great chance to win in court but it is better than trying to hold them off with a pistol.
==
Lightsabers?
I was kidding GF, society would have to look a lot different than it does now before we get there. That said, I've fired those rounds and its not bad on your shoulder if the butt is padded.
When they kick in your front door, how you gonna come? With your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?
As much as it sucks to have a pet die, no, they don't count.
I'm not, it's obviously horrible. It's just not as common as you'd like to think.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main