YAY!...Good thing I retired early!

I heard this rumor and thought PoR might be coming free for SABR members to replace ProQuest, but I just went there and it looks like it's free for anyone. Wonder how long TSN is going to be there now that PoR is giving it away free....

Well, goodbye everyone. I've enjoyed superficially interacting with you while I was waiting for this day to come.

Well, isn't that interesting. Thanks for the word, Mike.

Didn't realize that TSN was located in St. Louis.

Paging Jon Daly!

Found a strange baseball death for you while playing at Paper of Record

Wattie Holm


http://www.paperofrecord.com/paper_view.asp?PaperId=834&RecordId=5&PageId=7745302&iDateSearchId;=

Murder, suicide, plus injuring his child. Not the most pleasant story.

Paging Jon Daly!

Mike, we just got Paper of Record...why do you want to destroy it!

Why the frag would they make it free? There must be some catch.

Besides, I'm inclined to refuse to use it because of their banner image. 3,000 people? Get over it, already. How many has George Bush killed by now?

And yes, of course it's terrible. That's not the point, as many times that many people each day--some days more than others, no doubt--die deaths no more or less senseless. They are outrages all. In the meantime, if the perpetrators of the particular event in question wished to damage America's free society, they did not succeed, but not because of America's patriotism or steadfast resiliance. Rather they did it because Americans shamefully overreacted and destroyed much of their own freedom. Terrorists destroyed only a group of randomly assorted people, such as might have occured on a particularly bad day for auto accidents.

so far i can't get the damn thing to work.

I did, and now I want to go to the All Star Baseball Academy in 1936.

Wattie Holm, eh? Thanks, Mike! I didn't have that one.

How did you find that, Mike? What were you looking for?

That was quick.

Took me about 45 minutes to exhaust my download quota for the day. I did find a fun blurb from the Summer of '88 about how if the best thing the Expos could come up with was demoting Casey Candaele and Herm Winningham, and replacing them with Rex Hudler and Otis Nixon, they might as well give up.

(It may not be as fun for you guys as it was for me...Candaele and Hudler were two of my favorite players.)

How did you find that, Mike? What were you looking for?

Buck O'Neil - I was just searching to see if O'Neil was cropping up in TSN during this period. There was an article on that page about the Monarchs pitching 9 of 10 complete games - I assume the next week in Negro Leagues Prospectus there was an article about Buck burning up young pitchers arms :)

Yeah, I figured that it was the Monarchs article that caught your eye. Art Fowler wasn't the pitching coach was he?

Get over it, already. How many has George Bush killed by now?

Thread: dead.

How many threads has George Bush killed?

So Vaux, you don't want to use this service because the banner references 9/11, probably the biggest news story over the last 50 years?

Um, OK.

You're too stupid to be a Tigers fan. You are now officially out of the club. (Your pinstripes will be arriving in the mail in a few days.)

How many threads has George Bush killed?

Don't know, but Vaux gets the "Mission Accomplished" banner for this thread.

BTW, the OCR for TSN doesn't work all the time. I tried searching for Wattie Holm around that timeframe, but that story didn't come up. ProQuest (RIP) seemed to have a better OCR or better copies of papers to scan.

But I'll still take paperofrecord or newspaperarchive.

I'm talking to myself, ain't I? The topics that interest me generally don't interest the types that frequent places like this.

I'm talking to myself, ain't I?

That's what you get from being so damn diplomatic on politics.

The topics that interest me generally don't interest the types that frequent places like this.

I find the Paper of Record news really interesting. That's exactly why I'm staying away from it. I spend enough time with this junk without getting swamped into this. If anyone wants to look at something fun, though, I'd suggest looking at Chief Bender's starts from June 25 to August 21, 1907.

Buck O'Neil - I was just searching to see if O'Neil was cropping up in TSN during this period. There was an article on that page about the Monarchs pitching 9 of 10 complete games - I assume the next week in Negro Leagues Prospectus there was an article about Buck burning up young pitchers arms :)

For anyone searching for info on the Negro Leagues, POR also has the Baltimore Afro-American, which had fairly extensive coverage most years of the Eastern Negro League Teams.

That's what you get from being so damn diplomatic on politics.

I'm the Switzerland of Primer in more ways than one. I'm also a nihilist on the stathead vs old school debate.

well it is a hoot,try searching "baseball" from the earliest date and you'll find it was base-ball
back then.seems spring training injuries were an issue so some things never change!

there is a lot of stuff for an Ontario native to look thru and i had no idea these archives were
here for old local papers from the Waterford-Simcoe area.many thanks for the link!

I'm also a nihilist on the stathead vs old school debate.

Say what you will about the writings of Buzz Bavasi, at least it's an ethos!

Oh yes, 3,000 people getting killed in a building fire is a much bigger new story than the AIDS epidemic, the gradual melting of the ice caps, the destruction of vast swatches of rainforest along with the accompanying extinction of hundreds of species, the U.S. Government's wasting of 50,000 of its citizens' lives in Vietnam, several genocide events in Africa (that's terror), the end of America's industrial power and the destruction of the middle class, etc., etc., etc.

Get over yourselves.

It's Vaux, everyone!

Give him a big hand!

And now I see that I ###### up Buzz Bissinger's name, thereby ruining my joke.

Dammit.

When I saw the headline, I was hopeful the NY Times was going the way of the Village Voice. No such luck.

Let's guess how old Vaux is--I'll go first--14?

No, that's okay, JRE. Bavasi wrote a book, too. I used to have it until I gave it to some other SABR member.

That's a Canadian paper in the banner, BTW.

"I'm the Switzerland of Primer in more ways than one."

Do I take this to mean you're armed to the teeth?

I am qualified on the M-203.

Oh yes, 3,000 people getting killed in a building fire is a much bigger new story than the AIDS epidemic [etc...]

In the only metric that matters here -- quantity and prominence of news coverage -- it certainly is. Maybe it "shouldn't" be, but that's not the archivist's fault. I understand your argument, but by why one would make it based on the choice of what front page to put on the masthead is beyond my comprehension.

It's Vaux, everyone!

Give him a big hand!

You mean "Yankees fan Vaux," which is how I'll be referring to him from now on.

Let's guess how old Vaux is--I'll go first--14?

Naah, the fact he references Vietnam proves he's one of those leftover radicals, for whom it's always 1968. (And not because the Tigers won it all that year.)

Meanwhile, I'm finding some cool stuff on the 1946 Newburgh Hummingbirds...

I'm just someone who acknowledges that there's been a past, and hopes that there'll be a future.

I'm just someone who acknowledges that there's been a past, and hopes that there'll be a future.

Saving the world, one pageview at a time.

I'm just someone who acknowledges that there's been a past, and hopes that there'll be a future.

You're also one who calls an act of mass murder a "building fire". You'd fit right in at the White House, they could use a talented word twister like you.

Maybe it "shouldn't" be, but that's not the archivist's fault. I understand your argument, but by why one would make it based on the choice of what front page to put on the masthead is beyond my comprehension.

Because they're doing it to pander to the rank-and-file dumbass, instead of educating him--the job, the duty of an archivist, an historian--about what actually are the history that we should take away from the period in question. And, it must be pointed out, the WTC unpleasantness occured at a time of vastly more news coverage in general than important mid-century events; I suspect (or rather, I merely hope) that something like the invasion of one European country by another would receive far more coverage. It wouldn't of course, for two primary reasons. One is that it wouldn't involve Americans; to the U.S. media and the majority of its populace, 3,000 Americans are worth unquestionably more than a million people from any other part of the globe. The second is that it would unfold somewhat slowly, as opposed to being a single, sudden event. Human beings in general have short attention spans; something that happens all at once, and is instantly comprehensible (in the physical sense, that is), is the maximum to which they can devote full attention, about which they can actually worry and wail instead of just shrugging and ignoring the whole thing, gritting their teeth and fighting it, if it's something to fight, rather than trying to see if there's a better solution, or at least learning from their mistake of allowing it to occur in the first place, or banning it because it offends one of their religions. All of that is why I expect I'll die on a planet ravaged by flooding, famine, and disease, from an affliction that could have easily been cured by medical practice had it only been allowed to research the properties, uses, and applications of stem cells. But after all, if we hadn't banned such research, it would have angered God, causing him to bring ruination to all mankind....

WTC unpleasantness

I bet you think you are an objective observer.

Did I say it wasn't a deliberately started building fire? But unfortunately, no U.S. administration would ever want to downplay something that could provide the excuse for a war.

Again, it's Vaux, everyone!

Be sure and tip your waitresses.

You'd fit right in at the White House, they could use a talented word twister like you.

Ooooh, SNAP! Oh, he DIDN'T...!!

All of that is why I expect I'll die on a planet ravaged by flooding, famine, and disease

At least you'll get to say "I told you so!" before croaking, Yankee Fan Vaux.

Again, it's Vaux, everyone!

Be sure and tip your waitresses.


What happened to the other two Killer V's? I don't see them about much anymore.

I certainly admit, my good Weasel, that I really can't possibly be an objective observer, because I live in the country which has seen its civil liberties pillaged and plundered by a runaway overreaction to the incident. But in the end, there is probably no way to view history with true objectivity, only a maximal amount of fairness, unless one has no opinions of his or her own. I wonder whether there has ever been such a person. History can be written objectively, but it is still almost always possible to read between the lines.

Did I say it wasn't a deliberately started building fire? But unfortunately, no U.S. administration would ever want to downplay something that could provide the excuse for a war.

Yes you did, and that's what I'm talking about, what's with all the euphemisms?

History can be written objectively, but it is still almost always possible to read between the lines.


Unless the power supply to the database server has crashed.

Took me about 45 minutes to exhaust my download quota for the day.

How does this work for those who already have subscriptions that we paid for? Am I subject to some quota?

I use euphemisms because catch-phrases serve to fan the flames of panic and xenophobia. Calling it "9/11" makes people shudder and quiver and hate, hate, hate, willing to trade the danger of freedom for the chains of security. Calling it what it is, a plane crashing into a building, thereby blowing it up, allows us to step back and see it for what it really is--one tragedy in a history which is a vast tapestry of tragedies, and not even a particularly large one by absolute standards. And, of course, to thumb my nose at the conventional media.

But this thread is finished. I wish only life and growth, not only for myself, but for everyone on earth, as should be obvious whether you think me crazy, stupid, or otherwise. Good evening to all, except RMc. No, even him, for whom I extend my sincere hope for his personal mental and moral evolution. He does excellent work in the way of compiling lists.

I think we're all better people for having read this thread.

Wow, a thread saved by Daly? That happens as often as Beane's A's winning a post-season series.

Vaux, I agree with you on lots of things (though I'm confused by your refusal to read Paper of Record for a 9/11 banner), but this:

History can be written objectively

is untrue and undesirable.

History can be written objectively, but it is still almost always possible to read between the lines.

No it can't. You can try to present as many points of view as possible, but that's not the same thing.

Walewander, I really mean by that that history could theoretically be written objectively, although it would be equally hard to read it objectively, and therefore perceive it in that way. It is quite possible that history has never yet been both written and perceived objectively. Then too, it may be that nearly all of what has been constructed to seem objective has been merely so constructed, but is not actually; certainly there are some recent works of history that are slanted toward a non-Western point of view in an attempt to seem objective, for example. And of course, as I said, it is possible to read between the lines. In such a work, the fact that no labor is spared to make it seem objective is readily detectable.
(It is possible, though I have no personal experience of it, that there are also books written for consumption in non-Western countries which make the same attempt by the opposite means.)

And I agree with you that boycotting Paper of Record would be a silly thing to do, in the end. But the thread was fun anyway :)

Calling [the WTC kamikaze attack] what it is, a plane crashing into a building, thereby blowing it up,....

Calling segregation what it was, free business owners freely choosing to select their own clientele....

Calling the Iraq war what it is, a simple and honest mistake which could have happened to any country....

Calling Al Sharpton's refusal to apologize for libel what it is, a brave black man's bold and refreshing stand on principle....

Calling Nixon what he was, a leading political philosopher....

Euphemisms are so much fun....

But this thread is finished.

"I made idiotic, inflammatory comments and got pummelled, but I'm still the idol of you all! Good night, everybody!"

Good evening to all, except RMc. No, even him, for whom I extend my sincere hope for his personal mental and moral evolution.

Good lord! I'm evolving even now! Er, no...just gas.

I really mean by that that history could theoretically be written objectively blah blah blah...

You still here?

How does this work for those who already have subscriptions that we paid for? Am I subject to some quota?

You're still subject to the quotas, but you will be getting a refund for the unused portion of your subscription.

- MWE

All right, then, a plane being deliberately crashed into a building.

But honestly, Andy, facts are facts. Nothing about the above statement is false, it simply fails to include moral indignance that most Americans think should be included in it. On the contrary, to state that the Iraq "war" is a "simple and honest mistake" is false. This action clearly stems from a desire on the part of the current administration to have a war with Iraq by hook or crook, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. And for something to be a simple and honest mistake, but must be a thing that, at the time it was done, was not indisputably immoral. The segregation bit is slightly more complicated: it was certainly immoral, but the statement says nothing about morality, only what the businesses were "free" to do; those businesses were allowed to do what they were doing under the law at the time. The law was very wrong to allow it, and they were wrong to do it regardless of the law, yet by the definitions of the terms, it actually is a true statement. To this day the law allows many things which are wrong, and even requires many things which are wrong; euphemism is regrettably one of the methods by which this state of affairs is allowed to proceed.

Thanks, Mike. I get the Daily Digest and I don't think that Rod explained it as of midnight last night. This is kind of a weird cross-conversation.

ProQuest (RIP)

Hey! Don't worry me like that... I thought you meant ProQuest, the service, was done.

I raced to login, found it was still there, and breathed a sigh of relief.

(Although RoadRunner did some work last month, and since then, apparantly isn't in the registered IP pool any longer - so I have to use my library card to login. Time to fire off an email to the BadgerLink people again, like I had to the last time RoadRunner re-configed...)

All right, then, a plane being deliberately crashed into a building.

But honestly, Andy, facts are facts. Nothing about the above statement is false, it simply fails to include moral indignance that most Americans think should be included in it.

It's not exactly false, but it's so misleading as to be inaccurate. It was actually three planes deliberately crashed into three buildings, chosen because they were heavily populated with Americans, as well as a fourth that never reached its mark.

There was a little girl who used to play soccer with my son, when they both were about five years old. Her dad used bring her to the practices and play with her and her little sister. He died on September 11, 2001, and his girls are growing up without a father. My own wife fled from her office building on foot that morning, walking for miles till she reached a friend's apartment that she thought might be safe. I think I have a right to be morally indignant.

Hey! Don't worry me like that... I thought you meant ProQuest, the service, was done.

Yeah, the service is still around, but SABR members had access to alot of the historical stuff until a month ago. As a Connecticut library cardholder, I can still get recent NY Times and Hartford Courant stuff. I can also get historical Hartford Courant articles, but I think they start in the 18th century, but only go up to 1922. At least that's as far as they got last time that I checked.

Sure you do. Exactly as indignant as you'd be if some random guy had shot the girl's father while he was standing in his front yard. And even if he'd fallen asleep at the wheel and crashed into a garbage truck, you'd still feel pretty damn bad about it. And don't say that the auto accident is random, or not caused by an insidious murderer; it's no more or less random for the person who died than happening to have worked in the World Trade Center, and people who are crazy enough to crash planes into buildings are just as unpredictable and uncontrolable--no matter how much people moan "never again" and "God Bless America"--as tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis, drunken drivers, and all of the other unpreventable things that kill people. People die every single ####### day--hundreds of thousands of them in this country, millions in the world. They all leave behind people who loved them and needed them, and will suffer forever because of it. I honestly do not understand, quite honestly do not, why the fact that it was done by political/religious terrorists makes it worse. I assume that it's considered to be worse, since there isn't a grassroots movement calling for the banning of automobiles everytime somebody gets killed in one. Hell, even though people are always getting shot, guns are still legal (and damn well better stay legal as long as government personel are allowed to have them). #### happens. The world is filled with ####. What makes some #### worse than other ####?

I can also get historical Hartford Courant articles, but I think they start in the 18th century, but only go up to 1922. At least that's as far as they got last time that I checked.

Hmm. And NewspaperArchive can't help with what you're looking for?

History can be written objectively, but it is still almost always possible to read between the lines.

Nope. Even if you stick to "just the facts" there's always the issue of which facts one selects. Then there's how you present them -- for example:

All right, then, a plane being deliberately crashed into a building.

Bad things happen in the passive voice!

Hmm. And NewspaperArchive can't help with what you're looking for?

I can find stuff on there, but I don't like it as much as the other two services. Once I get more familiar with it, that may no longer be a problem. Generally, my searches are a little vague; more of a shotgun approach than a rifle approach.

All right, then, a plane being deliberately crashed into a building.

But honestly, Andy, facts are facts. Nothing about the above statement is false, it simply fails to include moral indignance that most Americans think should be included in it. On the contrary, to state that the Iraq "war" is a "simple and honest mistake" is false. This action clearly stems from a desire on the part of the current administration to have a war with Iraq by hook or crook, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. And for something to be a simple and honest mistake, but must be a thing that, at the time it was done, was not indisputably immoral. The segregation bit is slightly more complicated: it was certainly immoral, but the statement says nothing about morality, only what the businesses were "free" to do; those businesses were allowed to do what they were doing under the law at the time. The law was very wrong to allow it, and they were wrong to do it regardless of the law, yet by the definitions of the terms, it actually is a true statement. To this day the law allows many things which are wrong, and even requires many things which are wrong; euphemism is regrettably one of the methods by which this state of affairs is allowed to proceed.

Vaux, I will give you credit for consistency, since you seem willing to allow the segregation statement pass by without censure as well. But as you obviously seem to realize by your extended remarks, the statement begs the question----as do all of the others I cited, including your own. Saying something is a "true statement" and leaving it at that is little more than an easy debating tactic, one which in many cases contributes nothing of substance to an understanding of an issue, since what is usually more important is the overall view of an incident rather than the literal truth of the one isolated moment. Think of all the times the libertarians use the (literally) true "willing buyer and willing seller" cliche to justify just about any corporate action shy of first degree murder, and I think you'll get my point. Sophistry is sophistry, no matter where it's coming from.

To be honest, your remarks seem to fall into the broad "the enemy of my enemy cannot be named as my enemy" category, which is a variant of "no enemies on the Left" that seems to be applied to Islamist fanatics. And it's the dumbest sort of a trap to fall into, because---just look at the remarks here---when you start employing it, usually with some idea of anti-imperialist solidarity in the back of your mind, you wind up with few if any people outside your own small circle willing to even listen to you.

Now if that's what you want, it's a free country. But having read other posts on other threads that you've written, I can't see why you'd want to spend all that time just howling at the wind to no effect. But that's just my take on what I've read here.

Andy, I respect you opinion a great deal. But I don't think I've given the impression that I don't consider Islamist fanatics to be an ememy of mind, or of America's, nameable or otherwise; I said that it was a deliberate, terrible act, perpetrated by religious terrorists. Surely common sense can only read that as a declaration of disgust, and, if one thinks that way, of these terrorists' position as an enemy. I think it's fairly clear that I simply find the U.S. Government's actions, both domestic and foreign, in response to this enemy to have been irresponsible, foolish, immoral, and--which is far from the least reason for my disgust at them--quite forseeably unlikely to have any protective effect for America and its citizens. And I also think--a less popular position, to be sure--that very likely no domestic measures can be taken which both (a) significantly protect people from terroristic activity and (b) do not trample on the rights of innocent citizens to a degree much too high to be traded for such protection. I think that the entire enterprise is futile and ultimately destructive.

Now of course I could have phrased all of that in a far less invective manner, but I didn't, and usually don't, for a number of reasons, I suppose. I'm young (late twenties--no one won the guessing game), and have too much energy for this sort of thing. I've spent much of my life in a low financial state, which naturally leads to a certain pent-up hostility, especially in this semi-anonymous environment. But the fact of the matter is, it is only semi- anonymous. It would, I suspect, be quite possible, from comments I have made at various times, to find out who I am, and if I was on a different career-path, I probably would reign myself in more. I probably will never be elected to public office with my message board history, though I've never said anything remotely treasonous--nothing that is yet; at some point in the not-so-distant future, it may be treasonous to criticize the government in ways that I have done. But if it is, I'm sure they'll get me for something anyway. I live, in fact, in constant fear of this--they frankly have me scared half out of my wits, which is another reason for the character of my semi-shielded persona. In the meantime, one need only read many of my previous posts to see that I am in truth an ardent American patriot, in the ways by which it is proper to express such sentiment. And I recognize that your post is a kind way of telling me to grow up, a sentiment I appreciate. One who constantly rails that the entire human race should grow up ought certainly to learn how to be less abrasive on a message board.

Vaux, the problem I have with what you've said isn't the substance of your comments but where you've deemed it appropriate to make them. I don't come here to read about politics. In fact, I make sure to avoid threads once they turn into political pissing matches. If that's what you're interested in though, I won't complain about anything you say once a thread goes that way. However, for some time now you've been posting to threads, making comments about Bush/Republicans that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion. For the most part they've been ignored, but with a comment as over the top as the first one you made here, a couple people can't help but respond. You're certainly not the only one who does it, but I'd really prefer that no one do it unless it's a topic based in politics. I'm quite sure I'm not the only who feels that way.

People die every single ####### day--hundreds of thousands of them in this country

No they don't. According to the CDC 2.4 million people died in the U.S. in 2004, which works out to 6,553 per day (2004 was a leap year). If September 11, 2001 was a typical day otherwise, then the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania increased the national death rate by almost 50%.

Oh yes, 3,000 people getting killed in a building fire is a much bigger new story than the AIDS epidemic, the gradual melting of the ice caps, the destruction of vast swatches of rainforest along with the accompanying extinction of hundreds of species, the U.S. Government's wasting of 50,000 of its citizens' lives in Vietnam, several genocide events in Africa (that's terror), the end of America's industrial power and the destruction of the middle class, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, 3000 people being murdered (not "getting killed in a fire") is a bigger story than illiterate fiction about "the end of America's industrial power and the destruction of the middle class." Neither of which, of course, have happened.

As for the events you list that actually aren't imaginary, I guess that it's a question of priorities. If you think that a few dead spotted equatorial owls are more important than humans being killed, I guess nobody can convince you otherwise. Of course, even if they were "more important," none of those you list were single events with major headlines, so I don't see how POR is supposed to highlight them.

Of course, if the fact that "only" 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 means it's a lesser story, then I guess you think the lynching of black people in the United States is so trivial that it isn't even worth a mention in the study of history, since that's about the number of such lynchings in about a century.

At least Yankee Fan Vaux isn't claiming 9/11 was an "inside job," as so many on the Left do. He's merely saying they were irrelevant, and that Bush & Co. used them as excuse to shoot brown people on the other side of the world. Evil is as evil does, and all that.

I've spent much of my life in a low financial state

Mississippi?

At least Yankee Fan Vaux isn't claiming 9/11 was an "inside job," as so many on the Left do.

Come on RMc, that's below you. No reputable leftist believes that 9/11 inside job hokum, Whackjobs do.

I don't know what you mean by "reputable leftist" (is that like "jumbo shrimp"?), but this poll says half of all New Yorkers believe the government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."

NYC is overwhelmingly Democrat. Discuss.

Well, RMc, the same poll also says that 47.9% of "'Born Again' Evangelical Christians" believe the same thing. Care to discuss that?

A bit more to the point, when you go to your link it says that "some of our leaders" knew....Which may be just as farfectched as saying that "the government" knew, but it's not exactly the same thing. For one thing, some of those government officials were trying to warn other government officials (for instance a certain now-Secretary of State) about the strong possibility of an impending attack, but were blown off. It's entirely possible that this is what some of those New Yorkers (and Evangelical Christians) had in mind when they answered that question. It still may be a stretch, but it isn't necessarily indicative of a conspiracy theory mindset.

Well, RMc, the same poll also says that 47.9% of "'Born Again' Evangelical Christians" believe the same thing. Care to discuss that?

Sure. Evangelicals are, in the main, nutty as fruitcakes. They blame 9/11 on Jews and gays, the same way leftists blame George Bush. Just. Shut. Up.

Let's try this poll, which contains this classic: "The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed." Uh-huh. I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Republicans or Independents in that there sixteen percent.

I live in (suburban) New York, and I hear "INSIDE JOB!" every day of my life. It's an insult to the people I know who were there that day, some of whom lost friends and/or loved ones. And for Yankee Fan Vaux to insist that 9/11 is some piddly non-story...man, you might as well p!ss on the graves of the victims. (If they have graves, that is.)

I live in (suburban) New York, and I hear "INSIDE JOB!" every day of my life. It's an insult to the people I know who were there that day, some of whom lost friends and/or loved ones.

No question. If it's not a conscious insult, it might as well be.

Let's try this poll, which contains this classic: "The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed." Uh-huh. I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Republicans or Independents in that there sixteen percent.

Hmmm....if the core belief of a certain political philosophy is that "government" is our "enemy,"
then why would you suppose that those who believe that might not also believe that the "government" would do something like plant a series of bombs in the WTC? Isn't that what enemies do?

But more seriously, unless that poll breaks down its answers by party affiliation, that guess of yours is just that---a guess. Apparently there are no Republicans or Independents who would ever, ever believe that hidden forces (like Jews or gays, or hell---the Clintons) would do something like that. Heaven forbid that Republicans or Independents might ever conjure up imaginary enemies.....

Don't know what would be worse -- high gov't complicity, intentional neglect, or gross incompetence.

For me, the last and most likely one, is by far the worse.

As for Vaux, I understand where he's coming from because I've been there and am still, at 40+, sympathetic regarding the particular potential catastrophes he points to. But if he was really worried about any of those things beyond how they bolster his narcissism, he wouldn't be here moaning about them but actually doing something about them that involved other concerned individuals.

That's probably too harsh, he's probably involved to some extent in progressive causes, but if he could look past how these events will affect him, to take a more 'objective' view (a fiction), he'd realize that he's really just a part of much bigger flows of time, history and evolution. Americans rarely have been much concerned about the world beyond how it affects them -- most of our ancestors came here to escape "the rest of the world", and we've largely been isolationists throughout our history, and still are despite now having our fingers in nearly every pie in that world.

That's your real disconnect, our isolationism (degenerated into a broad narcissism) combined with a largely unacknowledged imperialism. September 11, 2001 woke us up temperarily to this problem of perception, but not enough to break the illusion.

I'm no different than most of my fellow countrymen and women, I'm pretty much willing to live with it and worry about my own little slice of reality, tend to the people and relationships closest to me and try to make the best of what I've got 'til I wander off this mortal coil and am quickly forgotten.

Until then, or until one of your catastrophes stikes close to home, when I've got a few spare moments with nothing better going on, I like to talk a little baseball at BTF.

Let's get on with it.

Vaux,
you are idiot.

This thread f*cking sucks. The Sporting News being available for free is an incredible resource for baseball fans and it gets ruined with a stupid thread.

Flynn did WTC.

Don't all our threads start as nominal baseball threads? Even PETCO started in a ballpark.

Sure, HCO. But have you noticed lately that none of the threads last more than 20 posts unless they morph into something else?

Like personal meltdowns laced with an insane amount of profanity? You're right.

Sure, HCO. But have you noticed lately that none of the threads last more than 20 posts unless they morph into something else?

Not sure if this is a positive about morphing threads.

Quality over quantity and all that.

This thread f*cking sucks. The Sporting News being available for free is an incredible resource for baseball fans and it gets ruined with a stupid thread.

Well, about 90% of the total threads do involve nothing else but baseball. So I'm not sure what any of the complaints are about, unless the complainers really are looking for some sort of a Super Nanny to strike all non-baseball posts.

But then there are always those who'll complain about a streroids thread, as if that hasn't anything to do with baseball. Same thing when any racial issue is raised, as if baseball and race aren't intertwined.

But if all you want to read or argue about is WARP factors, or more advanced statistical concepts, or the Toronto Blue Jays red hot minor league prospects, certainly there's plenty here to satisfy that urge, isn't there? Is anyone keeping anyone from threads like that?

I had a bookshop for 23 years, and the most boring sort of customer was always the one subject fetishist, who browsed only military history, or only baseball, or only art. It wasn't as if I didn't appreciate their money (duh), and it didn't mean that there weren't exceptional individuals among them, but as a class they weren't nearly as interesting as those who took in more than a tiny handful of subjects. And I think the analogy applies here. Baseball is interesting. Race is an interesting subject. Ethics are interesting. Politics is interesting. Economic theories are interesting. Different styles of argument can be interesting.

And one of the main reasons that BTF is one of the more interesting websites is because there seems to be a critical number of people who recognize this, who don't feel the necessity to restrict their focus into one narrow subject.

And yes, of course I know that this is Baseball Think Factory, and not Basketball Think Factory, or Libertarian Think Factory---but so what?

And Flynn, that's kind of a strange comment coming from you, since you've contributed more than a few pretty good non-baseball related posts over the years.

Final note for all who care: In about 10 seconds TCM is running The Battle of Algiers. If you haven't seen it, do so. And bring some of your neocon friends with you---they might learn a thing or two. It's one of the top 10 movies of all time.

How does this work for those who already have subscriptions that we paid for? Am I subject to some quota?



You're still subject to the quotas, but you will be getting a refund for the unused portion of your subscription.

- MWE

And the quota is 100 downloads per day, according to Herm Krabbenhoft. You know, for those who are interested.

"The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed." Uh-huh. I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Republicans or Independents in that there sixteen percent.

If it was a Democratic Party-run White House (like it was less than a year before that), I'm betting that there would have been a lot of Republicans who would have thought that it was Clinton's/Democrat's fault.

Nah, it's just that there's nothing happening right now.

In this day and age why aren't the final games of winter ball a bigger deal?

I live in (suburban) New York, and I hear "INSIDE JOB!" every day of my life.

I lived and worked in New York for three years after 9/11, and I associated with many Suspected and Known Leftists during that time, and I never once heard anyone say "INSIDE JOB!"

I have heard many people say that the Bush Administration didn't do enough to help prevent 9/11, and I think that's inarguable, since they did nothing. Whether they could have prevented it or not is an open question, though.

But that's not what "inside job" means. An "inside job" is where someone on the inside is actively abetting a plot, and almost literally no one believes that anyone in the White House was involved in the planning or executing of the 9/11 plots. Certainly no one who is able to feed himself.

The only people of any prominence who think America was to blame for 9/11 are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Dinesh D'Souza. Good stout Republicans all. Vaux would get along well with them.

greenback, I wasn't sure if this was damning me with faint praise or praising me with a faint damn:

Wow, a thread saved by Daly? That happens as often as Beane's A's winning a post-season series.

I'm SOOOO happy that I just paid to renew my subscription to POR for two years of service last month. Think they'll give me the $70 back?

To be fair, there are a bunch of Libertarians (not libertarians) who think "INSIDE JOB!" I've haven't heard any plain ol' conservatives say it, but that's probably because Bush is president. If Clinton were president, you'd hear it from conservatives.

The only people of any prominence who think America was to blame for 9/11 are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Dinesh D'Souza. Good stout Republicans all. Vaux would get along well with them.

That's entirely different. They're kooky, yes, but they're arguing that America is morally responsible, not that we're literally responsible.

Actually "morally responsible" makes it sound a lot less nutso than it actually is. These people believe we in one way or another deserved it.

The only people of any prominence who think America was to blame for 9/11 are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Dinesh D'Souza. Good stout Republicans all. Vaux would get along well with them.

I hate to "defend" Dinesh D'Souza, but that's not exactly what he's saying. In essence his argument is that Bin Laden has no real quarrel with America per se, but only with its morally decadent culture, which (naturally) D'Souza blames entirely on "leftists"---as if the exponential reach of American trash culture throughout the world isn't the wet dream of capitalists (many of whom may even be Republicans) everywhere. And IIRC Falwell and Robertson were saying more or less the same thing: 9/11 was liberalism's logical consequence, and the Twin Towers occupants got what American liberals really deserved. You could call it the misguided planes theory.

"Neocon!" is the new "Hippie!"

I'm SOOOO happy that I just paid to renew my subscription to POR for two years of service last month. Think they'll give me the $70 back?

Yes. From SABR-L:

... Due to contractual documentation we were unable to adivse our subscribers
about the new site which is now offered free of charge. Because the service is
now available at no cost, for security reasons we have to have a maximum in
place. The maximum downloads per day is 100.


You will receive a refund for the remaining portion of your subscription. We
will be refunding subscriptions in the coming weeks and we will be in touch
early next week with payment details.
Thank you for your understanding and patience during this transition.
Sincerely,
Bettina Miller

I hate to "defend" Dinesh D'Souza, but that's not exactly what he's saying. In essence his argument is that Bin Laden has no real quarrel with America per se, but only with its morally decadent culture, which (naturally) D'Souza blames entirely on "leftists"---as if the exponential reach of American trash culture throughout the world isn't the wet dream of capitalists (many of whom may even be Republicans) everywhere.

After months of "Leftists want to appease Islamic radicals by leaving Israel high and dry!" coming from Neoconland, one of their leading intellectual lights comes up with the idea "Let's appease Islamic radicals by banning dirty movies and oppressing gays."

Who hates freedom again? I'm afraid I've lost track.

I hate to "defend" Dinesh D'Souza, but that's not exactly what he's saying. In essence his argument is that Bin Laden has no real quarrel with America per se, but only with its morally decadent culture, which (naturally) D'Souza blames entirely on "leftists"---as if the exponential reach of American trash culture throughout the world isn't the wet dream of capitalists (many of whom may even be Republicans) everywhere.

After months of "Leftists want to appease Islamic radicals by leaving Israel high and dry!" coming from Neoconland, one of their leading intellectual lights comes up with the idea "Let's appease Islamic radicals by banning dirty movies and oppressing gays."

Who hates freedom again? I'm afraid I've lost track.

I hate to "defend" Dinesh D'Souza, but that's not exactly what he's saying. In essence his argument is that Bin Laden has no real quarrel with America per se, but only with its morally decadent culture,

and of course, this is wrong. bin laden's quarrel with america has to do with the israel/palestine conflict, the first iraq war and the US presense in saudi arabia, and america's support for kleptocracies in teh muslim world. i mean, 2 wrongs don't make a right, and his idea of utopia is especially twisted, but still, his quarrel is real.

also, d'souza looks funny.