|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, February 01, 2013
“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
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Cafardo: Dustin Pedroia the best second baseman in MLB? (102 - 3:51am, May 20)Last: RollingWaveNewsblog: Draft Features Rarest of Prospects: Redheads (94 - 1:36am, May 20)Last: JoMo the master pitch framerNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for May 19, 2013 (97 - 1:22am, May 20)Last: you got a STEAGLES? you're gonna need a STEAGLES.Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (3360 - 1:11am, May 20)Last: DJ Funky and the Smile Time Variety PlayersNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (889 - 12:59am, May 20)Last: Textbook EditorNewsblog: Hochman: Dallas Green still tells it like it is (10 - 12:44am, May 20)Last: Sunday silenceNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (947 - 12:28am, May 20)Last: robinredNewsblog: Holmes: Where does Miguel Cabrera rank among Tiger greats? (37 - 10:33pm, May 19)Last: Cooper NielsonNewsblog: Murray Chass: ARE RED SOX REELING ALREADY? (13 - 10:20pm, May 19)Last: Dale SamsNewsblog: MLB hoping for large replay expansion in 2014 (51 - 10:06pm, May 19)Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)Newsblog: Hal Steinbrenner calls tickets 'affordable' (21 - 9:26pm, May 19)Last: bunyonHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1982 Discussion (48 - 9:05pm, May 19)Last: Mr. CNewsblog: Chicago Softball (43 - 9:05pm, May 19)Last: Meatwad denied pope, reveals he faked it at massNewsblog: SoE (Megdal): It's Time to Finally Believe in the Orioles (26 - 8:38pm, May 19)Last: Mayor BlombergNewsblog: BtBS: Kevin Gregg Re-emerges in Chicago (4 - 7:48pm, May 19)Last: Transmission
|
|
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Though what happens with the next selection and the Vatican hierarchy is still to be determined.
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.
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.
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.
What benefit is that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
no, never, even Satan could call if he wants
N/A false premise
Western! Schsim!
clap, clap, clap-clap-clap
Western! Schism!
clap, clap, clap-clap-clap
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.
Concur. Someone send emails!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Thank you.
He's already the Twitter Pope.
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.
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.
Possible things that could make Popeing more difficult for the Pope: late stage Parkinson's; any stage Alzheimer's; just getting old.
That was my initial take.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
by who?
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.
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
I think he was a placeholder pick.
Other holy men.
I read this and thought "Mike Matheny isn't that old."
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.
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.
You can't overlook the home diocese advantage.
good one.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
A couple of pages later, McGreer writes,
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.
then stop quoting/citing the propaganda being disseminated by "Mens' Rights" groups.
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"
Not really, no. Please explain to me why his opinions and positions should be categorically dismissed.
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?
I hate to go all Ray on you, but this is a bizarrely dishonest thing to be saying as an argumentative point.
"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.
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:
Perhaps he should take his own advice, as delivered to Sandra Fluke -- GET A JOB!
$2134 per month for one child is a decent chunk of change.
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.
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.
If they name Curly Neal Pope, I'll consider conversion.
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.
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.
Perhaps he was concerned about this happening?
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gee, maybe Sam ghost-writes for him.
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main