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

Friday, February 01, 2013

Pink News: Curt Schilling: ‘Why the hell should being gay matter in professional sport?’

“Shilling”...nice touch.

Curt Shilling, a former pitcher with a career in baseball spanning 20-years, said in a series of tweets, that he did not understand why there was such an issue in professional sports with players coming out.

He also said that he had played alongside gay players, and that it did not matter, and that their performance on the pitch was the important issue.

Mr Shilling said: “I’ve never understood this ‘issue’ with gay players? Who cares? I know I played with some, their sexual orientation never had much to …To do with how they hit with RISP, or pitched in late and close situations, why the hell would what they do in the bedroom ever matter?”

Repoz Posted: February 01, 2013 at 02:19 PM | 2051 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: business

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 13 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›
   1201. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM (#4366941)
There's no threat of prosecution to any high level church leaders that I know of. It seems that the conspiracy angle - is Benedict being pushed out by his cardinals to protect the church? how? - would require at least some evidence of an ongoing investigation that could threaten Benedict.

I am interested in why it's happening now. I wonder if it has something to do with getting the right successor confirmed at the right time. But I have no idea. He is super old, and maybe he just wants to retire. I'd want to retire if I were 85 and working at an incredibly demanding job.
   1202. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4366949)
CrosbyBird/1153: Cosign, 98% on specifics, 100% on priniciple.

Are people arguing that it is larger or are we simply creating strawmans?
I had the same thought as MCoA, so I wouldn't call it a strawman.

While I (obviously) reject many of the claims and proposals by the "men's rights" side in this debate (particularly wrt denial of responsibility) - I think that there's broad agreement here that family law, in law and in application, is in many ways antiquated. To the extent it starts from a position of 'women are inherently victims' or without agency^ - it shouldn't.

^ and in my specific circumstances / state - it doesn't appear to

************

1201 - Who would/could prosecute? The Hague?
   1203. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM (#4366956)
This one's for snapper, or any of the other conservative Catholics here.

How do you feel about pope Benedict retiring? Think he's telling the truth, that it's ill health, or do you think it's a way for him to dodge prosecution for his role in the child rape coverup conspiracy?


As MCOA says, there's no threat of prosecution. Even if there were, being head of a sovereign state is about the best position to be in, so it doesn't make sense.

Personally, I don't like the idea. Anyone who becomes Pope knows going in that the only way out is feet-first. The Church is perfectly capable of functioning with a severely ill Pope, it did for many years with JP II. Leo XIII served until age 93.

I think it will be odd to have a "Pope Emeritus" around. I also don't like the idea that a Pope could resign in order to influence the choice of his successor. That's not his perogative.
   1204. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4366964)
Personally, I don't like the idea.


It does seem odd to me that as conservative as he has been, he would break with tradition in such a strong way. No idea what it means and I have no judgement regarding it other than that.
   1205. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4366970)
My understanding is that Benedict has been very theologically conservative, but he hasn't necessarily been institutionally conservative. Protecting his conservative vision of the church via radical methods isn't entirely unexpected, if that's the story here.

Though what happens with the next selection and the Vatican hierarchy is still to be determined.
   1206. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4366974)
My understanding is that Benedict has been very theologically conservative, but he hasn't necessarily been institutionally conservative. Protecting his conservative vision of the church via radical methods isn't entirely unexpected, if that's the story here.

Though what happens with the next selection and the Vatican hierarchy is still to be determined.


I really don't see how he's "protecting his conservative vision". He will not be in the conclave, and I imagine the Cardinals will go to great lengths to be sure he is not picking his successor.

The longer he served though, the higher the % of Cardinals that he chose would be in the eventual conclave. It would seem like he could do more to influence his successor by hanging on. Unless, there is a specific candidate he favors, and Benedict feels that man will be too old when he eventually passes.
   1207. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4366979)
You didn't see Karol retiring. As usual, Germans not having near the constitution of Poles.
   1208. GregD Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4366985)
I really don't see how he's "protection his conservative vision". He will not be in the conclave. The longer he served, the higher the % of Cardinals that he chose would be in the eventual conclave.

It would seem like he could do more to influence his successor by hanging on. Unless, there is a specific candidate he favors, and he feels that man will be too old when Benedict eventually passes.
That makes sense to me. you influence the next election by appointing the electorate.

Having a Pope emeritus is weird, but otherwise I think this is wise. On a human level, we all understand why he'd want to sit and read. But more broadly I don't think it does the church any favors to have an obviously incapable person as its head. (Not saying Benedict is incapable now, but that JPII obviously was by the end.) Not an issue of ideology; they can find a vibrant, energetic conservative if they want to.

But I'm the kind of heretic who thinks Queen Elizabeth should retire, too.
   1209. formerly dp Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4366987)
Granted, this is all based on listening to NPR for a few hours this morning, but they downplayed the child abuse angle, and focused more on his strained relations with Muslims. Basically, the narrative was: big picture, his role in the child abuse scandal doesn't matter all that much to the rest of the world, but his ability to facilitate good relationships between Christians/Catholics and Muslims does, and the latter issue has received little press in the US, but a whole lot of attention outside of it. FWIW, I'm not editorializing here.
   1210. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4366991)
But more broadly I don't think it does the church any favors to have an obviously incapable person as its head. (Not saying Benedict is incapable now, but that JPII obviously was by the end.)

I'm not sure JP II was ever mentally incapable, which is all that matters. In the old days, the Pope rarely left the Vatican; there is no need for a globe-trotting Pope.

I do think there is benefit to the world seeing a suffering, aging Pope carrying on despite his suffering, as JP II did.
   1211. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM (#4366993)
May I ask a theological question? Does Benedict lose God's cell phone number now? And does God change it so that he can't call back? Also, if God changes it, does that mean that a lot of players in the NFL have no one to call Sunday mornings?
   1212. Poulanc Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4366997)
I do think there is benefit to the world seeing a suffering, aging Pope carrying on despite his suffering, as JP II did.



What benefit is that?
   1213. McCoy Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4367002)
Yep. Just another deadbeat Pope.
   1214. GregD Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4367006)
I'm not sure JP II was ever mentally incapable, which is all that matters. In the old days, the Pope rarely left the Vatican; there is no need for a globe-trotting Pope.
Well I will grant I don't know for sure either but there were enough stories--by his sympathizers not just his critics--of his confusion and forgetfulness about his own writings and about the layout of the Vatican to make one suspect that he was, say, within the normal brain function of an 84-year-old man. Whether that forgetfulness means "mentally incapable," I wouldn't know. Everyone seems to agree that his advisors exercised unusual amount of oversight of the Vatican in his later years, though again that could be a case of managerial style.

On suffering, I think we all do gain something by watching people endure stoically amid pain, if the pain is unavoidable. I don't see a benefit to having organizations run by people with limited and declining faculties, either in terms of actual management or image.

If retirement became a norm, you could have a chance for a younger pope.
   1215. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:03 PM (#4367009)
What benefit is that?

It's a counter-cultural witness to the world that suffering is an inherent part of human life, and has redemptive value. It is not something to be feared or run from.
   1216. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4367010)
I don't see a benefit to having organizations run by people with limited and declining faculties, either in terms of actual management or image.

I agree with that, if there is mental impairment.

If the Pope is simply sickly, and unable to travel, that's no call for resignation.
   1217. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4367021)
Mike or Darren or Jimmy should go in and just mark this one the official "OTP" thread for this month.
   1218. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4367022)
May I ask a theological question? Does Benedict lose God's cell phone number now?

No, but he's only allowed to use it on his own behalf now, and on behalf of those who personally ask him to intercede on their behalf.

And does God change it so that he can't call back?

no, never, even Satan could call if he wants

Also, if God changes it, does that mean that a lot of players in the NFL have no one to call Sunday mornings?

N/A false premise
   1219. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:16 PM (#4367023)
I'll be honest. I didn't expect to come back from the beach and have a full on historic event dropped into the morning. This is *awesome.*

Western! Schsim!
clap, clap, clap-clap-clap
Western! Schism!
clap, clap, clap-clap-clap
   1220. Poulanc Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4367027)
It's a counter-cultural witness to the world that suffering is an inherent part of human life, and has redemptive value. It is not something to be feared or run from.


You don't think people experience that in their own life, without having to look to the Pope?

I think the image of a suffering, aging Pope does more to hurt the Catholic Church than it does aid it.
   1221. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:21 PM (#4367029)
Mike or Darren or Jimmy should go in and just mark this one the official "OTP" thread for this month.

Concur. Someone send emails!
   1222. Morty Causa Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:24 PM (#4367031)
1196 and 1197 are excellent.
   1223. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:26 PM (#4367032)
You don't think people experience that in their own life, without having to look to the Pope?

I think the image of a suffering, aging Pope does more to hurt the Catholic Church than it does aid it.


Not younger people no, I don't.

As someone who has suffered through 5 surgeries in the past 5 years, with another one likely coming, I can tell you my perspective on life, death and suffering has completely changed.

I nolonger fear death, except for the impact on my wife, but I fear suffering and disability. I know I personally still need the example of how to accept suffering and gain value from it.

I don't think JP II's public suffering hurt the Church at all. The only thing that can damage the Church in this regard is a Pope mentally incapable of governing.
   1224. villageidiom Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4367051)
I don't think JP II's public suffering hurt the Church at all. The only thing that can damage the Church in this regard is a Pope mentally incapable of governing.
A Pope mentally incapable of governing might also be mentally incapable of knowing that.
   1225. GregD Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4367053)
As someone who has suffered through 5 surgeries in the past 5 years, with another one likely coming, I can tell you my perspective on life, death and suffering has completely changed.

I nolonger fear death, except for the impact on my wife, but I fear suffering and disability. I know I personally still need the example of how to accept suffering and gain value from it.

I don't think JP II's public suffering hurt the Church at all. The only thing that can damage the Church in this regard is a Pope mentally incapable of governing.
I wish you godspeed, man.

John Paul II was always a remarkable model of resilience and determination against a wide range of challenges, and seemed to remain so until the very end. To the degree that we can see people age gracefully not just in good health but bad, I think it does help us grapple with our mortality. I know many people have thought a lot about Ali.

The Pope is both a moral exemplar and an organizational/national leader. The second responsibility is where it gets tricky. Would a more-alert pope have kept better control over his subordinates? It's hard to separate the general problem of managing people from the particular problem of managing people while one is in decline. Even a healthy ruler or pope could be isolated by a conniving butler or aide; on the other hand, it's clearly easier to isolate a frail one.
   1226. Morty Causa Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4367054)
1223:

Yes, some people do seem to have it more together at the prospect of impending mortality. Some, in fact, to such a degree that regardless of philosophy, politics, or ideology, they become objects to marvel at even. We are secretly a little jealous and are perhaps drawn to indulge in a little hero worship. A recent death that was especially becoming recently, I think, was Christopher Hitchen's. I can't say that I was a wholehearted admirer of his through the span of career, but in his last few months, by all accounts, he definitely rose to the occasion. He seemed to become more humane, more likeable, all without compromising his integrity.
   1227. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4367057)
The only thing that can damage the Church in this regard is a Pope mentally incapable of governing.


I think it comes down to a simple question: Is the office of the papacy an important role? If it's just a figurehead position, then by all means, there's no need for him to resign. But if it is an important office, it really shouldn't be filled by an 88-year-old invalid. Can someone really run a church and minister to the millions of faithful if he can't get out of a hospital bed? I doubt it.

For those reasons, I think it's fantastic that Benedict is stepping down now, before he's incapable of fulfiling his duties. I think it sends a message about the importance of his office, and about his own humility.
   1228. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4367061)
I think it comes down to a simple question: Is the office of the papacy an important role? If it's just a figurehead position, then by all means, there's no need for him to resign. But if it is an important office, it really shouldn't be filled by an 88-year-old invalid. Can someone really run a church and minister to the millions of faithful if he can't get out of a hospital bed? I doubt it.

For those reasons, I think it's fantastic that Benedict is stepping down now, before he's incapable of fulfiling his duties. I think it sends a message about the importance of his office, and about his own humility.


It does say positive things about him, I agree. But the Pope doesn't really "run the Church" like a CEO. He has surprisingly little power over the individual bishops who actually run the Church.

If mentally sharp, I see no reason why an invalid Pope couldn't run the Church. Especially with modern alternatives for communication. Maybe he'd become the "blogger Pope".
   1229. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4367063)
I wish you godspeed, man.

Thank you.
   1230. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 11, 2013 at 01:00 PM (#4367065)
Maybe he'd become the "blogger Pope".


He's already the Twitter Pope.
   1231. Srul Itza Posted: February 11, 2013 at 02:43 PM (#4367138)
But the Pope doesn't really "run the Church" like a CEO. He has surprisingly little power over the individual bishops who actually run the Church.


Do we really know what the actual burdens are, on the Pope? The Papacy and the larger Church are hardly the most transparent organizations.

It may be that each Pope defines, to some degree, the burdens and duties he undertakes, and the degree to which he allows them to be delegated with time. If so, Pope Benedict obviously knows better than any of us whether he is capable of fulfilling the role of Pope as he understands it.

We also don't really know enough about his physical and mental condition, or his prognosis in that regard, to judge his decision.
   1232. phredbird Posted: February 11, 2013 at 03:40 PM (#4367170)
i don't think he was expecting some kind of spanish inquisition.
   1233. McCoy Posted: February 11, 2013 at 03:44 PM (#4367176)
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
   1234. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2013 at 03:48 PM (#4367179)
Except fathers not paying child support.
   1235. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 03:52 PM (#4367183)
Not sure how you quit being pope. I thought there was only one way out...
   1236. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4367187)
It may be that each Pope defines, to some degree, the burdens and duties he undertakes, and the degree to which he allows them to be delegated with time. If so, Pope Benedict obviously knows better than any of us whether he is capable of fulfilling the role of Pope as he understands it.

We also don't really know enough about his physical and mental condition, or his prognosis in that regard, to judge his decision.


But we do know that other popes have stayed on the job come heaven or high water.

The recent popes weren't exactly prodigies of health.
   1237. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4367188)
We also don't really know enough about his physical and mental condition, or his prognosis in that regard, to judge his decision.


Possible things that could make Popeing more difficult for the Pope: late stage Parkinson's; any stage Alzheimer's; just getting old.
   1238. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4367191)
   1239. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4367194)
Not sure how you quit being pope. I thought there was only one way out...

That was my initial take.
   1240. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 03:57 PM (#4367195)
Not sure how you quit being pope. I thought there was only one way out...


Aside from dying, historically there has also been "selling the office to your godfather." But admittedly, the literature is sparse on this issue. It's actually pretty cool to see something happen that hadn't occurred since the early 1400's. This is like finding a new continent!
   1241. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4367198)
Also, team trivia is on Ash Wednesday this week, and we play with a bunch of Greek's, so our team name this week is going to be "Orthodoxy: These Popes Don't Run." My initial suggestion of "Western Schism 2: Electric Bugaloo" was downvoted.
   1242. phredbird Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:03 PM (#4367205)
this could be guido sarducci's last good opportunity, btw.
   1243. Morty Causa Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:11 PM (#4367214)
Why was such an old man elected to the position? He was almost 80 years only when he ascended to office. Is there a story behind that? Was he a compromise choice?
   1244. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4367216)
Not sure why he was elected, but if I recall the rumors at the time were that he really simply wanted to retire to his house in his last years.
   1245. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4367220)
Does the Pope give up his diplomatic immunity by resigning? If so, should he not be pursued for covering up child rape, obstruction of justice, and ancillary crimes.
   1246. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:17 PM (#4367222)
Why was such an old man elected to the position? He was almost 80 years only when he ascended to office. Is there a story behind that? Was he a compromise choice?

No one ever knows why. It's a secret process.

The simple answer is the conclave thought he was the best man for the job.
   1247. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:17 PM (#4367223)
Why was such an old man elected to the position? He was almost 80 years only when he ascended to office. Is there a story behind that? Was he a compromise choice?


I seem to recall at the time that he was elected as a direct attempt to re-engage European Catholicism and attempt to 1) carry forward John Paul's legacy while 2) attempting to salvage something of the Church in Western Europe.

The Church's most vital areas of influence are Africa and South America. But I'm not sure the Vatican is ready for a black pope.
   1248. phredbird Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4367227)
Why was such an old man elected to the position? He was almost 80 years only when he ascended to office. Is there a story behind that? Was he a compromise choice?


snapper can probably answer this better than me, but ratzinger wielded extraordinary power in JPII's papacy -- he was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the head of the college of cardinals and so many members of the college were his guys. in JPII's decline phase i imagine he made a lot of the decisions for the pope during his last illness.

campaigning for the job is frowned upon, but as a conservative body, the college probably works a lot like the GOP -- they prob. decided it was his turn, even though he was a bit old.
   1249. phredbird Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:21 PM (#4367228)
cokes all round.
   1250. phredbird Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:24 PM (#4367231)
The Church's most vital areas of influence are Africa and South America. But I'm not sure the Vatican is ready for a black pope.


it will be interesting to see if they start a bit of a regression and go back to an italian or if the 3rd world guys put forward a south american everybody can live with. they've had two straight non-italians, so the trend could be in place. agree on your last point though, no way they'll name a pope of color.
   1251. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:25 PM (#4367232)
snapper can probably answer this better than me, but ratzinger wielded extraordinary power in JPII's papacy -- he was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the head of the college of cardinals and so many members of the college were his guys. in JPII's decline phase i imagine he made a lot of the decisions for the pope during his last illness.

campaigning for the job is frowned upon, but as a conservative body, the college probably works a lot like the GOP -- they prob. decided it was his turn, even though he was a bit old.


I think the fact that he didn't want the job was a huge plus. He is also a legitimately brilliant theologian, and viewed as a very holy man.

There is also the tendancy of the college to go with the opposite of the last Pope (the saying is "after a fat Pope, a thin Pope"). So, after JP II very long reign, the Cardinals may have preferred an older candidate who was unlikely to serve very long.
   1252. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:30 PM (#4367237)
it will be interesting to see if they start a bit of a regression and go back to an italian or if the 3rd world guys put forward a south american everybody can live with. they've had two straight non-italians, so the trend could be in place. agree on your last point though, no way they'll name a pope of color.

I think a South American is possible. I also wouldn't be shocked by someone from Asia. Cardinal Ranjith has experience in the Curia, and is relatively young at 65.
   1253. Morty Causa Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:31 PM (#4367238)
I seem to recall at the time that he was elected as a direct attempt to re-engage European Catholicism and attempt to 1) carry forward John Paul's legacy while 2) attempting to salvage something of the Church in Western Europe
.

This will never be the pretext to elect an American (as in United States of American) pope. To re-engage American Catholics would melt the Church as surely was what happened to the Wicked Witch in Wizard of Oz.
   1254. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4367243)
I think a South American is possible. I also wouldn't be shocked by someone from Asia. Cardinal Ranjith has experience in the Curia, and is relatively young at 65.


First, let me say the phrase "Pope of Color" is the best thing the internet will churn out today, unless someone can figure out a way to turn it into a reference to Joseph's technicolor dream coat. A Pope of Many Colors would be the best thing ever.

Second, the top three candidates from the betting sites - I love that there are wagering odds for this - have Arinze (Nigerian, PoC), Turkson (Ghana, PoC) and Ouellet as the front runners. (Ouellet is not a Pope of Color, but would be a Pope of Canada, which is probably as close as you're like to see to Pope Team America.)
   1255. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:42 PM (#4367245)
and viewed as a very holy man.


by who?
   1256. GregD Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4367246)
Ratzinger was the leading candidate, by rumor, going in to the last conclave. The second most commonly discussed candidate was a Nigerian, Arinze, who is now 80 and is still perhaps a candidate but maybe out of the running. One positive for the cardinals, presumably, is that the African bishops are quite conservative, and they could get a big PR boost in the west without giving a single inch on doctrine.

The conclave is reportedly 25% Italian so you'd think a united Italian delegation would carry some weight. When are Italians ever united?

The system of serving until death created some perverse incentives to naming older popes, perhaps. If you're 65, you can vote for an old pope and still have a shot either at getting it or being part of the next decision-making process. If you name a 65 year old, you're probably done.
   1257. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:44 PM (#4367247)
I seem to recall at the time that he was elected as a direct attempt to re-engage European Catholicism and attempt to 1) carry forward John Paul's legacy while 2) attempting to salvage something of the Church in Western Europe.


despite being a Western European, Ratzinger was a VERY ODD CHOICE if that was the goal, and if it was the goal, it shows how so very out of touch the upper echelons of the church are
   1258. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4367248)
So, after JP II very long reign, the Cardinals may have preferred an older candidate who was unlikely to serve very long.


I think he was a placeholder pick.
   1259. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:53 PM (#4367250)
by who?

Other holy men.
   1260. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4367261)
So, after JP II very long reign, the Cardinals may have preferred an older candidate who was unlikely to serve very long.


I read this and thought "Mike Matheny isn't that old."
   1261. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: February 11, 2013 at 05:23 PM (#4367262)
The Church's most vital areas of influence are Africa and South America. But I'm not sure the Vatican is ready for a black pope.


Countries by Catholic population

Top 3 are Brazil, Mexico, and Philippines. US is 4th. There are more Catholics in Brazil than in Italy, France, and Spain combined.
   1262. phredbird Posted: February 11, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4367284)
Top 3 are Brazil, Mexico, and Philippines. US is 4th. There are more Catholics in Brazil than in Italy, France, and Spain combined.


yah, but what's the breakdown in the college? that's what counts.

i'm always a little intrigued by this process. as a lapsed catholic, i feel like i'm following the strategies and gossip of a team i used to play for before i joined my present squad.
   1263. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 11, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4367285)
There are more Catholics in Brazil than in Italy, France, and Spain combined.

You can't overlook the home diocese advantage.
   1264. phredbird Posted: February 11, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4367286)
I read this and thought "Mike Matheny isn't that old."


good one.
   1265. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 11, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4367290)
(the name's in honor of misirlou's excellent reference)
   1266. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4367292)
While I (obviously) reject many of the claims and proposals by the "men's rights" side in this debate (particularly wrt denial of responsibility) - I think that there's broad agreement here that family law, in law and in application, is in many ways antiquated. To the extent it starts from a position of 'women are inherently victims' or without agency^ - it shouldn't.

^ and in my specific circumstances / state - it doesn't appear to


I can't speak for my co-civil rights' advocates, but I prefer not being tarred with the "mens' rights" brush.

If there's "broad agreement" we nonetheless hear only the barest peep of that from the "anti-rights" crowd (if you will). Their argument is so thin, so one note, that it really can't sustain any internal contradiction. I suppose the only response to the not atypical story of an ignorant, unskilled kid who had sex at 18, became a father as a result, and has been jailed eight times for an inability to pay, is 'tough titty'. We wouldn't want to risk extending our limited allowance of compassion to the poor bastard. That might undermine the argument in favor of a vindictive approach to enforcement.

For those reasons, I think it's fantastic that Benedict is stepping down now, before he's incapable of fulfiling his duties. I think it sends a message about the importance of his office, and about his own humility.


It also sends a message that undercuts the whole papal infallability business, just a little. That's very important. Catholics need to be encouraged to disagree with the destructive aspects of Church doctrine. On second thought, an obviously ailing, fumbling pope might better send that message.

The Church's most vital areas of influence are Africa and South America. But I'm not sure the Vatican is ready for a black pope.


I'm pretty sure Africa isn't ready for the Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure what Africans need less than anything is a lunatic insisting Africans shouldn't use condoms.

Imagine what would happen to someone who went through, say, Ethiopa, preaching a no rubber policy but without God and hell as the coercion and the imprimatur. How quickly should this obviously mentally ill person be stopped?

   1267. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: February 11, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4367294)
Thanks Dan.
   1268. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 06:08 PM (#4367298)
Speaking of religion, an interesting article from the NYT, "The Conscience of a Corporation":
But these concessions are not enough to satisfy the religious lobbies. Evangelicals and Catholics, cheered on by anti-abortion groups and conservative Obamacare-haters, now want the First Amendment freedom of religion to be stretched to cover an array of for-profit commercial ventures, Hobby Lobby being the largest litigant. They are suing to be exempted on the grounds that corporations sometimes embody the faith of the individuals who own them.


It's an interesting, well-written article, and the close, citing Rick Warren's claim that this is our decade's Birmingham, does help us more fully realize how downtrodden and underrepresented Christians are in government and public life.

I'd like to see a counter push, perhaps led by union members, to extend Constitutional rights to private sector employees during their employment. Imagine the hurrah if we didn't demand that working men and women give up their First Amendment rights (substitute "Employers" for "Congress", for simplicity) while eking out eight bucks an hour. Imagine what the right to free association on the job would do to union membership.
   1269. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 11, 2013 at 06:19 PM (#4367306)
Imagine the hurrah if we didn't demand that working men and women give up their First Amendment rights (substitute "Employers" for "Congress", for simplicity) while eking out eight bucks an hour.

Hobby Lobby is not employed by Congress.

Any union that wishes to make an argument for specific workplace rules is free to include them in a bargaining situation.
   1270. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 06:36 PM (#4367320)
@1269: Sure, but I'm talking changing the law (and perhaps the Constitution) and giving them a leg up going in. It's something I'd prefer to add to the list of 'inalienable rights', but I understand that you don't.

edit: and if I wasn't clear, I'd start with something on the order of

"Employers shall set no regulations prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of printed materials; or the right of employees peaceably to assemble, and to petition the employer for a redress of grievances."

There would be similar language prohibiting punishment for the exercise of these rights, and so on. Perhaps an Employees' Bill of Rights, or a model Workers' Rights law. Again, I understand this would be anathema to you.
   1271. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 06:43 PM (#4367324)
I can't speak for my co-civil rights' advocates, but I prefer not being tarred with the "mens' rights" brush.


When we were discussing Obama's second inaugural mention was made of how he quite deftly redefined the liberal position on civil rights to be one of support for human rights, not of support for disparate "rights movements." That's the entire point of his rather brilliant pairing of "Seneca Falls, Selmy, and Stonewall. I'm at a loss as to why we should suddenly decouple "mens' rights" from the greater arc of rights activism, just because it makes a few folks too comfortably entrenched into their existent worldviews uncomfortable to think of rights as human; or perhaps to think of men as human, I suppose.
   1272. bunyon Posted: February 11, 2013 at 07:09 PM (#4367342)
Possible things that could make Popeing more difficult for the Pope: late stage Parkinson's; any stage Alzheimer's; just getting old.

My first thought on hearing the news is that he must have received an Alzheimer's diagnosis. Or, clinical dementia of some sort. We're clearly at a point where people can live a (relatively) very long time with essentially zero mental faculties. Forget being an invalid, what if the Pope doesn't realize he's the Pope?

Obviously we don't KNOW. But I can't imagine that the whole story is he keeps falling asleep at meetings.
   1273. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 07:11 PM (#4367345)
I'm at a loss as to why we should suddenly decouple "mens' rights" from the greater arc of rights activism, just because it makes a few folks too comfortably entrenched into their existent worldviews uncomfortable to think of rights as human; or perhaps to think of men as human, I suppose.


If this is a criticism of my post, perhaps it's warranted. Rather than running away from a label as some have wrt "liberal", perhaps it should be embraced. I'm well aware that "mens' rights' activists" are treated with roughly the same regard in many quarters as "white rights' activists", the presumption here being that men are already so privileged that it's absurd to think their rights need protecting in any way.

Good point about Obama, btw.
   1274. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 07:25 PM (#4367355)
.

There's a remarkably honest piece of writing titled "To Go or Not Go to Jail", by D’Arcy L. McGreer at

http://virginiafathers.org/Documents/To go or not go to jail.pdf

(The 'a' function isn't working for some reason.)

It's consistent with the experience of several friends as they've told it to me, and with the things I've been told by a couple of lawyers I used to play poker with. His intro explains,

At the encouragement of Dave Roberts, president of American Coalition of Fathers and Children, I wrote about my multiple experiences, 3 times, of being put in jail to help those threatened with jail on May 12, 2007.

Should you go to jail or not because you owe child support? Your decision will be made based on your resources and your fear and understanding what jail is like. To help you make that decision let me tell you about my experience of being through the Fairfax County jail three times on two findings of contempt.

...........................................


A couple of pages later, McGreer writes,

Incarceration for people like fathers is not meant to protect the public as is true for putting violent criminals in jail. I realized how it worked the first time I was in jail. I had fallen behind in my child support payments. I was making payments, but not the full amount as ordered. I had a lot of difficulty at the time holding a job and getting paid and meeting all my expenses.

Originally we were all from New Jersey, my ex had gone down with my children to Virginia just after I had gotten laid off at my New Jersey job. She and our children had gone down to Virginia to our families as an economic move while I stayed back at our house in New Jersey, took care of things and looked for employment.

While she was down in Virginia, she gave me the bad news, things went from bad to worse and finally court action initiated by her for child-support payments. She was awarded our children and awarded child support in spite of them having a house and home in New Jersey and her and our children had no place of their own in Virginia.

The traveling back and forth to see my children in Virginia made it difficult for me to maintain employment in New Jersey and pay for all the expenses of living in New Jersey and traveling back and forth, so I fell behind in my payments. When I was in court the first time in Virginia, I explained my situation to the judge, and his response was to add an arrearage amount to my child support payments and make the total amount due the first of each month, and if on any 1st of the month in which I did not make my payments, I was to be arrested and jailed. This sentence was given me two weeks before the 1st of next month. I was in an impossible situation. There was no way I was going to be able to make that payment in two weeks on the 1st of the next month.

But, even if I begged and implored from someone else to get the money, I would be having this sword hanging over my head for decades to come. I talked to a friend of mine who was a public defendant lawyer in New Jersey. He said I should not go back to Virginia. But, if I did not go back to Virginia, I could not see my children whom I was still very attached to. The psychological distancing for ejected fathers had not taken effect in me and my children yet. I talked to my father about it, who was living in Virginia and decided that he should not give or loan me any money, because if the system was successful this time, it could happen again and again and I was looking at more than a decade of life like this.


These are the guys that, for the most part, we're putting in jail.

.
   1275. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 07:34 PM (#4367362)
These are the guys that, for the most part, we're putting in jail.


And to be clear, they're going to jail because they had the audacity to have unprotected sex with a woman.
   1276. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 07:48 PM (#4367370)
Is there another version of this sad tale of woe from his birthing vessel?
   1277. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 08:09 PM (#4367382)
Careful, YR. You seem to be falling into our trap of suggesting there is more than one side to all of this.
   1278. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 11, 2013 at 08:10 PM (#4367383)

I can't speak for my co-civil rights' advocates, but I prefer not being tarred with the "mens' rights" brush.


then stop quoting/citing the propaganda being disseminated by "Mens' Rights" groups.

   1279. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 11, 2013 at 08:15 PM (#4367385)
There's a remarkably honest piece of writing titled "To Go or Not Go to Jail", by D’Arcy L. McGreer at


Do you know who Mr. McGreer is and what he stands for?
If you did I do not believe you would refer to the story he gave in your link as "remarkably honest"
   1280. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4367393)
Do you know who Mr. McGreer is and what he stands for?


Not really, no. Please explain to me why his opinions and positions should be categorically dismissed.
   1281. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 08:35 PM (#4367401)
Never heard of McGreer before I saw the article last night after a google search. Why? Is he worse than Hitler? His article is from 2007, and seems devoted to the facts of a very narrow slice of experience. I suppose he could have made it up, but it's consistent with what I know, and has the feeling of someone writing honestly, and without much regard for your opinion of him.

then stop quoting/citing the propaganda being disseminated by "Mens' Rights" groups.


I have literally no idea what you're talking about. The little I know about MRA stuff is from the occasional deranged post I see elsewhere that lumps all feminists together, which is an easy clue that the writer isn't paying much attention to the world in which most of us live.

What "propaganda" are you refering to? A principled stand, which has been explained in detail, is on its face not propaganda. If a superficial grasp of what's being said encourages you to frame two distinct belief systems as the same, then without intending to insult you, I suggest you read more deeply into what's being said. One can think the US needs to be more aggressive protecting its interests in this hemisphere without subscribing to the Monroe Doctrine or any sort of imperialism, for example.

To return to McGreer, all I can see is what appears to be a guy who lost his job and got caught in the Orwellian meat grinder*** that is the 'child support' enforcement apparatus. In the eight page article to which I linked he writes ably of that experience. He seems bitter, but with good reason, and his bitterness doesn't come close to overwhelming his narrative.

*** "Orwellian" is an abused term, but not here. He is allowed to leave jail while awaiting trial, but only if he is able to post a cash bond equivalent to the amount he is alleged to owe, which would seem to diminish his chances of successfully asserting that he doesn't have the cash to pay what he is alleged to owe.

edit: googling the name suggests his experience radicalized him, to the point where he is now Secretary of something called Fathers for Virginia. Is that a bad thing?
   1282. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4367412)
And to be clear, they're going to jail because they had the audacity to have unprotected sex with a woman.

I hate to go all Ray on you, but this is a bizarrely dishonest thing to be saying as an argumentative point.
   1283. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4367413)
The opening statement of Fathers for Virginia reads,

"Who should join?

"We encourage anyone, married, divorced, never-married, grandparents, religious leaders, legal experts and anyone else who is interested in reducing the number of children not growing up in intact families and/or reducing the attendant negative effects of these children growing up in separated or single parent homes because one parent, almost always the father, is ejected or removed from his child's life."

Really, based on the alarmist tone of your posts, I expected he had become a Grand Wizard of the Klan, or something similar.
   1284. zonk Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4367418)
Perhaps this will rearrange the circlejerk teams back into their appropriate configuration --

FORMER (man does it feel good to say that!) TP Congressthing Joe Walsh has just filed to amend his child support agreement because - per his filing:


Joe’s employment has been terminated through no voluntary act of his own and he is without sufficient income or assets with which to continue to pay his support obligation


Perhaps he should take his own advice, as delivered to Sandra Fluke -- GET A JOB!
   1285. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:13 PM (#4367425)
Speaking of guns and custody battles, this happened today. I don't really mean it as a point to anything, just more to say that everything is horrible.
   1286. SteveF Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:25 PM (#4367428)
FORMER (man does it feel good to say that!) TP Congressthing Joe Walsh has just filed to amend his child support agreement because - per his filing:


$2134 per month for one child is a decent chunk of change.
   1287. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:27 PM (#4367429)
there is no need for a globe-trotting Pope.

If there was a pope that spun a basketball on his finger before a spine-shattering 720 gorilla dunk, I think that fills a need.
   1288. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:31 PM (#4367432)
$2134 per month for one child is a decent chunk of change.


What did Walsh do before being a Rep? What is the justification for requiring him to pay $2K+ per month to support a child? This seems pretty ###### up on the face, minus any contravening details.
   1289. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:32 PM (#4367433)
If there was a pope that spun a basketball on his finger before a spine-shattering 720 gorilla dunk, I think that fills a need.


If they name Curly Neal Pope, I'll consider conversion.
   1290. SteveF Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:34 PM (#4367435)
What is the justification for requiring him to pay $2K+ per month to support a child?


It's entirely possible the child has special needs. I couldn't find any information on a quick search.

The general theory is to maintain the child's lifestyle as it existed when his or her parents were together, oftentimes irrespective of the changing circumstances of the father.
   1291. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:42 PM (#4367441)

What did Walsh do before being a Rep? What is the justification for requiring him to pay $2K+ per month to support a child? This seems pretty ###### up on the face, minus any contravening details.


Congressmen make like $175G. On its face $25G doesn't seem like an unreasonable % for child support.
   1292. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:53 PM (#4367457)
Speaking of guns and custody battles, this happened today. I don't really mean it as a point to anything, just more to say that everything is horrible.


Perhaps he was concerned about this happening?

.
   1293. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:01 PM (#4367461)
$2134 per month for one child is a decent chunk of change.

What did Walsh do before being a Rep? What is the justification for requiring him to pay $2K+ per month to support a child? This seems pretty ###### up on the face, minus any contravening details.


Could be legit, or could be a random 'needs of the child' thing, like when a buddy went into court and came out finding himself responsible for the payments on his son's mother's late model convertible and her $900 a month restaurant takeout bill. After all, though, ten years earlier, he'd dated her for five weeks, so he'd be a cab to complain.

edit: re Walsh, a change in jobs typically means a change in income, so an adjustment up or down in support ought to follow. In this case I assume he was married and co-operated in the decision to go to term, so his obligation should have a floor, but remain adjustable given that.
   1294. zonk Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM (#4367468)
What did Walsh do before being a Rep? What is the justification for requiring him to pay $2K+ per month to support a child? This seems pretty ###### up on the face, minus any contravening details.

Congressmen make like $175G. On its face $25G doesn't seem like an unreasonable % for child support.


Yeah - Walsh had his support adjusted about a year ago... I might have some of this wrong, but my recollection of the timeline was that Walsh and his ex had worked out an arrangement outside of court, but he had fallen in arrears on that alternate arrangement. I believe she went to court after he had gotten elected, took a trip to Italy with a gf, but hadn't made any effort to get out of arrears (and missed a mediation or some such -- and had tried to claim some sort of congressional immunity).

I stayed out of the big support discussion because frankly, I see both sides...

A case like Walsh probably falls outside that discussion, though -- to what extent should a father have to alter his lifestyle to meet child support obligations?

While I can certainly feel for situations like McGreer's - I see someone like Walsh (who - in addition to being a former Congressman, I also know has a graduate degree from University of Chicago) and frankly, I think he has responsibilities and not to put too fine a point on it (and acknowledging that I just don't like the guy), I think a person of let's say... high moral fiber... ought to be sacrificing his personal wishes in favor of his responsibilities... I.e., he's been barnstorming Illinois in preparation of a probable gubernatorial run, he's started a superPAC, and he clearly wants to stay 'in the game'.

I suppose to some extent - maybe he ought to get credit for not just taking the revolving lobbyist door exit that awaits most congressmen (although, he's relatively toxic, so maybe that's not an option)... but he's clearly got some credentials that make him pretty employable.

I'm not a father and I'm not saying one's individual hopes and dreams have to be entirely extinguished post-fatherhood -- but I do think that if I were, my 'primary responsibility' ought to change... and that might mean taking a 'boring' job instead of leading some quasi-movement.
   1295. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM (#4367472)
A case like Walsh probably falls outside that discussion, though -- to what extent should a father have to alter his lifestyle to meet child support obligations?


If you agreed to have a child with your spouse and the award was agreed to, you sure as hell don't go to Italy with your girlfriend if you're in arrears. That's ridiculous.

It wouldn't be unusual for a custodial parent to accept a reduction in support in return for future earnings, either, though the more typical instances I'm seeing are when a guy goes to grad school***, and the ex-wife accepts a reduction for the couple of years grad school takes on spec, against a percentage of increased earnings later on.

There may not be a precedent along the lines of 'If he wins the governorship, then...' I imagine a lot of this has to do with how the couple is getting along. If she doesn't like him, or wants to bust his balls, or is broke, or the judge won't allow it, he's shite out of luck. Keep in mind, you pay support to the enforcement agency in most cases, not the custodial parent. If you fall behind, 'but we agreed!' won't cut any ice.

My recollection is that judges will impose an award based on what someone with your background and education and earnings history typically makes. If someone with Walsh's background can readily make $125,000, a judge will typically award 17% of that. That he made 175k as a Congressman who was voted out of office will probably be treated as exceptional, with the award adjusted upward when he took office, and downward when he left.
   1296. zonk Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:15 PM (#4367478)
BTW - just to be fair to Walsh...

I think his ex-wife is an attorney for Abbott labs - so it is a 'maintaining lifestyle' situation, not a 'the kid isn't eating' situation.
   1297. Morty Causa Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:26 PM (#4367490)
Which, again, shows that child support is not only about supporting the child. There's a social re-engineering aspect to the tacit public policy underlying it, almost always only wrt the man. If you are a man and can't pay, you are always threatened with jail (not to mention, this guy who has no money is supposed to come up with a lawyer--freebie public service organizations restrict themselves to aiding mothers and children), sometimes you serve time in jail, but even if you don't, there's always the hassle and harassment of making court appearances, of having to justify your life and ways, of being morally on the defensive in a hostile matrix. In many cases, for the poor, garnishment of wages is de rigueur, either administratively through a child support enforcement agency or simply court-ordered as a matter of course, and that can lead to you losing your job.
   1298. McCoy Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM (#4367495)
Let's talk about alimony and what a crazy thing that is. We can all agree on that, right?
   1299. Srul Itza Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:34 PM (#4367499)
From the Article by the very reasonable Mr. McGreer:


The best way I think to understand this is to realize your situation is not about justice, but understanding the politics and the feminist wanting to burn you because you are a man and you impregnated some woman or as I heard Dr. Laura Schlissinger say on her radio talk show, “nail his but to the wall.” Remember those judges have got to keep their guaranteed $75K+ jobs, get promoted, be praised and they are being watched by well organized political groups. They are also educated by the feminist and liberals who think fatherhood is some past evil state that needs to be wiped out of existence.


Gee, maybe Sam ghost-writes for him.
   1300. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:38 PM (#4367504)
Let's talk about alimony and what a crazy thing that is. We can all agree on that, right?

I think there's a limited place for temporary alimony.

If a wife stays home to raise the kids, and he husband leaves her, alimony for a couple of years while she re-enters the workforce makes sense.

Otherwise, it makes no sense.
Page 13 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFormer OF Jason Lane takes loss in first start
(25 - 12:35am, Jul 29)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1004 - 12:33am, Jul 29)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

NewsblogDmitri Young explains his amazing weight loss
(32 - 12:29am, Jul 29)
Last: Sunday silence

Newsblog2014 Prospect Watch | MLB.com: UPDATED
(21 - 12:28am, Jul 29)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogESPN: Yankee Fan Returns Lost Red Sox World Series Ring
(24 - 12:27am, Jul 29)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3443 - 12:24am, Jul 29)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogHall of Fame Announces Changes to Voting Process for Recently Retired Players, Effective Immediately
(100 - 12:22am, Jul 29)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-28
(64 - 12:00am, Jul 29)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(462 - 11:31pm, Jul 28)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogGossage on Bonds, McGwire Hall hopes: ‘Are you f–king kidding?’
(129 - 11:13pm, Jul 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogBarney + cash to Dodgers for PTBNL
(9 - 11:05pm, Jul 28)
Last: Spahn Insane

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1956 Ballot
(8 - 10:50pm, Jul 28)
Last: Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-28-2014
(48 - 10:19pm, Jul 28)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogDodgers and Diamondbacks Triple-A teams involved in wild brawl
(25 - 7:47pm, Jul 28)
Last: Bhaakon

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Discussion
(4 - 7:44pm, Jul 28)
Last: toratoratora

Page rendered in 0.6334 seconds
52 querie(s) executed