The Governor and AG in Texas are both gross humans - and their “pro-business” stance is really just giving cover to bigots - so, yeah - this doesn’t surprise me in the least. But, at least they have their own power grid…lol.

Don’t have to mess with Texas - they do it to themselves.

Paywall workaround.

it’s just this dark cloud that’s signifying it’s OK to treat this group of people like s—.

Is not having a special night in someone's honour really the same thing as treating them like s—? (I mean, it's pretty tone deaf, but...)

it’s just this dark cloud that’s signifying it’s OK to treat this group of people like s—.

My favorite team has never had a night celebrating red heads. How dare they treat us like s— !

#3-4 ... It's the context. If, for example, every other state has a holiday celbrating Martin Luther King Jr while one state legislature votes it down every year, then that state is making a statement. (Are there any left?) If 99% of schools have a Black history month then the 1% that don't are making a statement. If a state still wants to honor the traitor Robert E Lee then that state would be making a statement. Back when 15 other MLB teams had broken the color barrier, the last one was making a statement. Robinson had been retired for over two seasons when the Red Sox finally integrated, are we to believe that was just happenstance? Now whether the statement the Rangers are making here is "you are a PoS" is debatable, they may simply be saying "our bigot market is far larger than our gay/liberal market so if we're gonna have to piss off one or the other ..." but there's no mistaking that they are making a statement.

#5 - So a team / city / state should do something just because every other team / city / state does it?

The statement I'm seeing is "celebrate us or else"

Robinson had been retired for over two seasons when the Red Sox finally integrated

Jackie also hung up his cleats before the Phillies or Tigers ever had a black player - don't leave them out....

I think it's very likely to change. I expect DeSantis to push for a law from his court to outlaw such a display from all pro and college teams in the state next session.

Texas Woman's University - Saturday, April 22 vs. Athletics
First Responders 1 - Saturday, April 29 vs. Yankees
Youth Baseball and Softball - Sunday, April 30 vs. Yankees
Texas Tech University - Wednesday, May 17 vs. Braves
Military Appreciation - Saturday, May 20 vs. Rockies
Bark at the Park - Sunday, May 21 vs. Rockies
Baylor University - Friday, June 2 vs. Mariners
Teacher Appreciation - Saturday, June 3 vs. Mariners
Hardin-Simmons University - Saturday, June 3 vs. Mariners
Boy and Girl Scouts Weekend - Saturday, June 3 and Sunday, June 4
Abilene Christian University - Friday, June 16 vs. Blue Jays
Mexican Heritage - Saturday, June 17 vs. Blue Jays
Youth Baseball and Softball - Sunday, June 18 vs. Blue Jays
Dallas College - Monday, June 26 vs. Tigers
Tarleton State University - Friday, June 30 vs. Astros
Healthcare Heroes - Friday, July 14 vs. Guardians
Stephen F. Austin University - Saturday, July 15 vs. Guardians
Big 12 Night - Tuesday, July 18 vs. Rays
University of North Texas - Wednesday, August 2 vs. White Sox
Texas A&M University - Friday, August 4 vs. Marlins
Teacher Appreciation - Saturday, August 19 vs. Brewers
SMU - Saturday, August 19 vs. Brewers
First Responders 2 - Sunday, August 20 vs. Brewers
Military Appreciation - Sunday, September 3 vs. Twins
University of Texas at Arlington - Wednesday, September 6 vs. Astros
Veterans Appreciation - Saturday, September 9 vs. Athletics
Last Chance Theme Night - Friday, September 22 vs. Mariners

As Walt said in #5, they are making a statement. They already have a ton of community games, so they are no strangers to celebrating groups of people, just not that community of people. Given that all the other teams have a Pride night, it's surely easier to have one than to not have one. It's a decision that says something about their organization. The reader can choose if it's a good or bad statement. I know which way I vote.

There used to be no blowback to "woke" stuff which made doing it risk free. I use that word because there isn't one word that encompasses all the issues that are circulating. Corporations out in place these big ESG programs because a bunch of liberal investment houses demanded it. Those mandates have gotten to the point that cigarette companies who have invested big in ESG initiatives are being taken off the "do not invest lists" at money managers while a company like Tesla which brought EVs to the world is being taken off because it doesn't do the ESG paperwork.

Now the Disney and Target and Bud Light boycotts are driving home to Corporate CEOs that there is, in fact, potential downside to these types of initiatives. Disney had a boardroom coup narrowly averted. target and Anheuser Busch are in the crosshairs and are "damned if you, damned if you don't". Red state pension funds have outlawed their pensions from using any ESG guidelines for investing. A lot of this relates to protecting oil and gas industries and gun industries which get banned from ESG portfolios

Only a couple years ago Atlanta lost an all star game over over voting. That would never happen today 2-3 short years later. The dodgers ended up with bad PR from both sides, so if you are trying to figure this stuff out the likely thought processes will be:

1. Let's keep the players out of the line of fire. No patches, special uniforms (like the military gear which I find awful )
2. Let's keep anything controversial low-key. Don't go out of your way to promote it but don't hide it either
3. Let's not stop doing anything we were already doing - that can make things worse
4. Let's focus our nights on benign topics. University nights are very different from pride night or Christian night or military veterans nights.
5. Do serious vetting of anyone you intend to invite or honor. Even post game concerts.

It's a minefield out there for companies navigating this. And for the leagues. The NHL has had major struggles because of their large Russian player base. The NBA with their pro -China stance. There was always a view in C-suites I knew that bad news would blow over - it's not clear that is true for these topics

Double post

1. Let's keep the players out of the line of fire. No patches, special uniforms (like the military gear which I find awful )
2. Let's keep anything controversial low-key. Don't go out of your way to promote it but don't hide it either
3. Let's not stop doing anything we were already doing - that can make things worse
4. Let's focus our nights on benign topics. University nights are very different from pride night or Christian night or military veterans nights.
5. Do serious vetting of anyone you intend to invite or honor. Even post game concerts.

Can't say I disagree with any of that. As a veteran, I hate the fetishization of the military in today's sports, especially football. When I see a soldier brought home from an overseas combat deployment to surprise their family at a sports event, it's very cringy and frankly disgusting.

I agree that being the only team without a pride night has to be a deliberate statement rather than an oversight. However, I suspect that statement is much more likely to be "It's not worth the backlash" rather than "We hate gay people".

Duke's #10 seems pretty accurate.

Well-expressed, Walt! (#5)

Thank goodness there are some states and sports franchise that won't cave.

Corporations out in place these big ESG programs because a bunch of liberal investment houses demanded it.

Of the many dumb things, I consider the ESG freakout among them... I'm not exactly sure what a "liberal investment house" is - can you provide an example of one? - but the more accurate statement would be that a nascent "conscience fund" market got large enough to worth paying attention to. Of course, the big problem is that there half a dozen well-known equity scorers providing ESG numbers (each with their own methodology, yielding often contradictory numbers) and while the SEC is slowly rolling out disclosure rules, there's still a big lack of standards.

Nonetheless, I'm pro-disclosure when it comes to publicly traded securities.

However, the biggest reason I think this is whole thing is silly?

Below are four ETFs. Two of them are "pro-ESG"/"woke" ETFs; two are "anti-ESG"/"anti-woke". Without reading more about them (and not looking at the fund names, I guess :-)), I defy anyone to accurately guess which two are in which bucket.... Don't cheat! Scroll to the bottom of the page and just look at he biggest holdings...

Fund 1

Fund 2

Fund 3

Fund 4

Of the many dumb things, I consider the ESG freakout among them... I'm not exactly sure what a "liberal investment house" is - can you provide an example of one?

Willful ignorance. Blackrock. There you go. Larry Fink has been pushing globalist, WEF nonsense for years, and using ESG as a bludgeon.

WEF nonsense is exactly right, though probably not in the way you think.

How Some Here manage to live in a world so beset by evil cabals lurking everywhere is quite beyond me.

WEF nonsense is exactly right, though probably not in the way you think.

How Some Here manage to live in a world so beset by evil cabals lurking everywhere is quite beyond me.

Answer me this: Why is a money manager concerning itself with anything except financial returns?

The WEF has announced itself as desiring to centralize world power among a coterie of elites. This is no secret. They want to replace national democracies with central control. They catastrophize about the environment for this very purpose. Why don't you believe their stated goals? Do you also believe all those billionaires going to Epstein island were there for the fishing?

Just remember, anyone who supports "net zero" supports the death of hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of poor people around the world. Without fossil fuels, living standards will collapse, unless we invest massively in nuclear power.

My oh my.

The black helicopters never do stop flying...

Just say "adrenochrome" and I've got a bingo!

Why is a money manager concerning itself with anything except financial returns?

Because that is what their clients want?

It's a silly misdirection anyway -- I mean, Blackrock has a pretty large menu of ETFs (in essence, the iCore funds? Those are Blackrock) and the overwhelming majority of them (and the vastly overwhelming majority of their total managed assets) are pretty straight forward index funds (S&P500;, R2K, various bond and munis, etc).

I mean - these are the largest ETFs by assets. You'll notice iCore is well-represented. Look them up if you wish, but you'll find they're really just blackrock equivalent to similar funds offered by Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard, et al.

Yeah, they offer smaller niche funds... like a US Aerospace and Defense industry fund (how leftist!)...

Answer me this: Why is a money manager concerning itself with anything except financial returns?

That's what Krupp said.

If a state still wants to honor the traitor Robert E Lee then that state would be making a statement.

Google tells me my native Arkansas finally stopped combining MLK & Robert E. Lee days in 2017. The latter is now honored in October, I gather.

Looks like -- shock! -- Alabama & Mississippi are the 2 remaining states that combine the observations. Jefferson Davis' birthday is still a state holiday here (Alabama), & god only knows what sort of miscreants are honored in the state to the immediate west. Probably one or more Klansmen, though unfortunately that would actually be more appropriate for Indiana.

Probably one or more Klansmen, though unfortunately that would actually be more appropriate for Indiana.

Alas, it was Tennessee.

Changing sports, for some reason after decades of being aware of not only Alabama's unfortunate history of racial relations but also much of the minutiae of the World Hockey Association, it occurred to me only this weekend, while reading a newish book on the Birmingham movement of 1963, that the WHA showed incredible tone-deafness in naming the Birmingham Bulls in the late '70s. I get that they were the relocated Toronto Toros, & that a bunch of Canadians weren't likely to be particularly acquainted with local Civil Rights history in Alabama, but my god, it's almost akin to changing the Tulsa Drillers' name to the Massacres.

Worse, even as I type a Southern Professional Hockey League team called the Birmingham Bulls exists. At least they didn't go with "Bombers."

Hey, hey, hey... So far I am aware, Indiana no longer celebrates Edward L Jackson Day.

Robert E. Lee High School is about 3 blocks from me. I think. I need to check if they've changed it.

Edit: Well, I'll be damned. Robert E. Lee (the school, not the Confederate general) will henceforth be known as Dr. Percy L. Julian High School. Julian was a Montgomery-born Black chemist and pioneer in medicine. Nov 10, 2022

It seems to have happened without any torchlight parades or violence, somehow, even when (if memory serves) the Lee statue went away before that

How Some Here manage to live in a world so beset by evil cabals lurking everywhere is quite beyond me.

1) They live in a world of Truth (note the capital), where there is one single absolute.
2) They see that their "Truth" is slowly losing relevance through a variety of factors (depending on which "Truth" they happen to believe).
3) Since they know they are right (obviously) and supported by a higher power/the universe (again, obviously), so they know they can't be losing by any fair or rational reason.

Therefore, the world is beset by evil cabals, lurking everywhere and causing "Truth" to lose to the evil of ... whatever it is they think is evil.

.

#29 pretty much nailed it. They can't cope with reality, so they create their own.

Robert E. Lee High School is about 3 blocks from me. I think. I need to check if they've changed it.

Robert E. Lee High School in Alexandria, Virginia, became John L. Lewis High School a couple of years ago.

Lee was a slave owner who made a terrible decision in casting his lot with the Confederacy. He was also the best general of the Civil War and an innovative college president. I wouldn't name a newly built school after him, but - especially with high schoolers - there's a good case for keeping the name and asking the students to wrestle with his complex legacy.

Lee was a slave owner who made a terrible decision in casting his lot with the Confederacy. He was also the best general of the Civil War and an innovative college president.

you could make the case that some kooky austrian was the best painter to ever lead a country into war.

asking the students to wrestle with his complex legacy.

it's not nearly so complex if you stop infantilizing him.

guy went to war to keep black americans in slavery. full stop. that was a choice he made, as an adult man, living a relatively comfortable life of luxury. guy was the ryan lochte of the confederacy.

It is interesting how things have changed over time. When I was in elementary school in the late 80/early 90s, in a very blue NYC suburb, we were assigned to write a report about a great historical leader. My father — a lifelong Democrat who planned anti-Vietnam war protests in college and organized co-denominational services and fundraisers with a local Black reverend — suggested that I write about Robert E. Lee because (a) he was an excellent general and leader of soldiers, and (b) nobody else was likely to choose him. And it was completely uncontroversial in class at the time (albeit, a class with very few non-white students).

I didn’t gloss over Lee’s slave ownership or anything like that, but it’s hard to imagine that my father would suggest writing such a report today, and I’m sure it would be more controversial (as it should be. There is a moral dimension to leadership and whatever you think about Lee’s positive qualities or the time and place in which he lived, I do think he fell short on that element).

#29 pretty much nailed it. They can't cope with reality, so they create their own.

You mean like the "reality" you all create by saying a man can become a woman? Or maybe the "reality" that COVID occurred naturally? Or that lock downs and masks achieved anything?

Oh, I forget, you're the party of "science". Any have to use Gov't and big Tech to police wrong-think, because your "science" fails High School biology, and is refuted by every honest study.

The WEF has announced itself as desiring to centralize world power among a coterie of elites. This is no secret. They want to replace national democracies with central control. They catastrophize about the environment for this very purpose. Why don't you believe their stated goals? Do you also believe all those billionaires going to Epstein island were there for the fishing?

Was that the Bilderburgers, the Illuminati, the freemasons, or the Jews?

Trick question. It's always the Jews.

My father — a lifelong Democrat who planned anti-Vietnam war protests in college and organized co-denominational services and fundraisers with a local Black reverend — suggested that I write about Robert E. Lee because (a) he was an excellent general and leader of soldiers, and (b) nobody else was likely to choose him. And it was completely uncontroversial in class at the time (albeit, a class with very few non-white students).

In 1976 & 1979, Robert E. Lee & Jefferson Davis had their U.S citizenship restored by uncontroversial near unanimous votes in both Houses of Congress, which had large Democratic Party majorities at the time. The current furor over such matters is of quite recent vintage.

You mean like the "reality" you all create by saying a man can become a woman?

Huh? What a weird and false dichotomy. You are collapsing multiple different concepts into one category. Mostly you are mixing up "sex" and "gender".

`Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people.`

No one is saying the genetics (for example) magically transmogrify or anything. Mostly it is about letting people be themselves and make medical choices with their doctors, without reprisals, condemnations, or authoritarian laws.

Or maybe the "reality" that COVID occurred naturally?

You have no idea the degree to which COVID is natural. You don't even know enough of the science to understand the argument on either side. Neither do I, by the way. It is mostly unimportant at this point, but I have no problem with actual scientists researching the issue and coming to conclusions, and arguing among themselves. I am not particularly interested, however, in what the "ideas" might be of people whose "research" involves YouTube video watching and who seem to think they have a political stake in the outcome of the debate.

Or that lock downs and masks achieved anything?

Such a weird hill to choose to die on. Especially from the exact same people who were in hysterics over that one Ebola Nurse years ago.

But yes, both lock downs and masks achieved "anything". Both policies, as well as other medical policies that were enacted, had both costs and benefits. A rational discussion could be had about how nations and states responded to the novel disease and how we can respond better in the future. There is much to be learned about both the costs and benefits of various initiatives taken. Especially if you take into account the behavior of individuals across the globe, how their actions changed irrespective of what various governments did, and also what the mental and physical health impacts of both their actions and governmental policies.

Or, and this is what you want to do, you can make weird assertions on issues which challenge your world view in an attempt to score valuable internet points and defend that world view from an attack from reality (which does not care about either of our world views, it is just going on about its business).

The current furor over such matters is of quite recent vintage.

Um, Clapper, 1979 was 44 years ago. Not that the passage of time has much to do with it, right and wrong are what they are and the passage of time does not make wrong into right through alchemy. But still, you are showing your age but suggesting that something that happened well over 40 years ago, mostly done by politicians long dead, is somehow "quite recent vintage."

Hey, relative to when the people Lee fought to keep as chattel were allowed to vote as a practical matter, 1976-79 was of *quite* recent vintage!

Can't say I disagree with any of that. As a veteran, I hate the fetishization of the military in today's sports, especially football. When I see a soldier brought home from an overseas combat deployment to surprise their family at a sports event, it's very cringy and frankly disgusting.

I could not agree with this more. We're not all heroes, and pretending that we are is plastic and meaningless. Heroes do exist, and sharing that word does nothing but cheapen it.

I could not agree with this more. We're not all heroes, and pretending that we are is plastic and meaningless. Heroes do exist, and sharing that word does nothing but cheapen it.

As a non-veteran, my objection is simply the time that's wasted, time that could have been spent with the family, setting up a big public surprise for virality's sake. The priorities seem skewed in these situations.

In 1976 & 1979, Robert E. Lee & Jefferson Davis had their U.S citizenship restored by uncontroversial near unanimous votes in both Houses of Congress, which had large Democratic Party majorities at the time. The current furor over such matters is of quite recent vintage.

And? At one point there was a current furor over not allowing interracial marriage that was of quite recent vintage. Your point?

But still, you are showing your age but suggesting that something that happened well over 40 years ago, mostly done by politicians long dead, is somehow "quite recent vintage."

Well, if you read the post, you should know that I was merely providing some additional context to Inge’s post (#34) about his more recent “completely uncontroversial” early 1990s school report on Lee. We both noted the same thing, although my post focused on earlier official actions of Congress.

Additional context? LOL

44 years ago is not "quite recent".

We both noted the same thing, although my post focused on earlier official actions of Congress.

Riiiggghhhtttt... with, of course, the favorite hobby horse of which party controlled Congress at the time when most of us here were either not yet born or were in diapers.

I suppose I should consider myself lucky that you mopes tend to reference Jersey Rooting solely to that aspect and it *usually* doesn't mean I need to reconcile William Jennings Bryant to monetary policy or evolution or Native American affairs to Andrew Jackson or whatever.

Riiiggghhhtttt... with, of course, the favorite hobby horse of which party controlled Congress at the time when most of us here were either not yet born or were in diapers.

That, and the near unanimous vote in both Houses of Congress, demonstrated the extremely broad bipartisan consensus at the time. Which was the point, even if some may have missed it.

44 years ago, among politicians who are now nearly all dead. That is ... less significant than you might think.

That, and the near unanimous vote in both Houses of Congress, demonstrated the extremely broad bipartisan consensus at the time. Which was the point, even if some may have missed it.

I have zero problem both acknowledging prevailing social constructs of things that occurred in my lifetime - hell, even being a part of that (Dukes of Hazzard was probably my first 'favorite show' as a child) - and recognizing the errors and problems with it.

I *firmly* believe that this is how society progresses and advances: separating silly nostalgia and the human longing for the comforts of childhood from the underlying problems that gird that nostalgia and the fact that... one shouldn't atrophy, but grow up.

Indeed - being in my 40s, I will very much cop to regularly using the slur "fag" as a generic slam when I was 12. Recognizing why that was wrong, understanding even just a bit of the history why it became so omnipresent, etc doesn't invalidate my childhood or mark me or anyone else as evil... but - it takes really minimal effort to grasp the problem.

Hell, I went to HS in a *northern* Indiana town... and my HS history class 'taught' me that Thaddeus Stevens was an insufferable gadfly, an opponent of Lincoln, and generally speaking - a villain of the era. The reality I've only later come to understand is that he was quite a conscientious visionary specifically on matters of human equality. He also had an element of conspiracy theorist to him (big-time anti-mason), but an even reading of the man is quite different from what I was taught.

Yes. Times change. Of course, acknowledging that is easier for progressives than conservatives, kind of definitionally.

Hell, I went to HS in a *northern* Indiana town

Almost as northern as you can get.

As a non-veteran, my objection is simply the time that's wasted, time that could have been spent with the family, setting up a big public surprise for virality's sake. The priorities seem skewed in these situations.

Yes, that was my point. When those things happen, it means either that the soldier was not allowed to tell their family, and the family was brought to the event under false pretenses in order to stage a spectacle. Or everyone was in on it and they are required to perform an act on the national stage.

I hate surprises. I loathe the very idea of a surprise party, and something like that is just not OK. I would react poorly to such a thing happening to me. I mean, I am not a vet or anything, so it won't, but that stuff is just terrible on principle IMO.

Changing sports, for some reason after decades of being aware of not only Alabama's unfortunate history of racial relations but also much of the minutiae of the World Hockey Association, it occurred to me only this weekend, while reading a newish book on the Birmingham movement of 1963, that the WHA showed incredible tone-deafness in naming the Birmingham Bulls in the late '70s. I get that they were the relocated Toronto Toros, & that a bunch of Canadians weren't likely to be particularly acquainted with local Civil Rights history in Alabama, but my god, it's almost akin to changing the Tulsa Drillers' name to the Massacres.

Worse, even as I type a Southern Professional Hockey League team called the Birmingham Bulls exists. At least they didn't go with "Bombers."

Funny, I was active in the southern CRM while the Birmingham demonstrations were going on, and of course the arch-villain of that movement was the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor.** But until I read what you wrote above, I wouldn't have associated that WHA name with Bull Connor in a million years. When I see "Bulls" as a sports name I automatically think of the Durham Bulls, not any particular person.

But "Bombers"? Yeah, the association there would've been too unmistakable for anyone to miss, even now.

** Who BTW was also a former broadcaster for the Birmingham Barons.

When I see "Bulls" as a sports name I automatically think of the Durham Bulls, not any particular person.

Not Chicago?

I wouldn't have associated that WHA name with Bull Connor in a million years.

this is the first time I've seen it noted as well, and I remember the Birmingham Bulls - and the Toronto Toros, who as noted were this franchise before they moved to Birmingham in 1976 (as well as the ill-fated Ottawa Nationals, who moved to Toronto after just one sorry season).

both the Toros and Bulls had the exact same logo - a snorting bull with fearsome horns, and not a bull horn or a fire hose in sight.

Connor died three years before the Bulls arrived in Birmingham, so no he did not "throw out the first puck," either.

almost certainly just a coincidence - albeit a weird one.

Chicago will always be the Zephyrs to me. (I remember coming across that name in an old World Book Yearbook at maybe age 10 and being utterly baffled at not only the meaning of "Zephyr" but how to pronounce it.

Du(h)plicate

Chicago will always be the Zephyrs to me.

I wasn't asking what nickname he associated the city with, but what city he associated Bulls with. But, for me, when I see Zephyrs, I think New Orleans.

Zephyr makes me think of the Amtrak route before any sports team. The train originates from Chicago. Not sure if the team was named after that.

They were the Packers their first year (giving the NBA a whopping 9 teams), the Zephyrs their second, & the Baltimore Bullets their third. The Bulls came along 4 years later & proved to have a bit more staying power.

That first franchise was almost Seattle Pilotian. Uh, Pilotesque. Piloticious? If someone hasn't written a book about what must've been a pretty wild experience (I know of probably a half-dozen on the Pilots), they should.

. He was also the best general of the Civil War and an innovative college president.

J.E.B. Stuart says "hello."

i'm not getting why the trans haters have almost completely focused their hate on what they think is men pretending to be women. They seem to not care about all the wimmen who are trying to pass themselves off as men. would they screech about females in drag? fake beards and codpieces and whatevs

and seriously, what IS the big deal? so what if some XY person wants to look like a XX person (or the opposite) and change hormones and genitals? seriously, what's it to them? no one is making THEM do it

Then why do they put all that stuff in the water?

#63 J.E.B Stuart has no such claim. Nathan Bedford Forrest might ( probably not as he has no real record with larger formations) -- and was pretty clearly the best cavalry leader of the war.

Funny how people keep trying to credit losing officers as being the best.

When I see "Bulls" as a sports name I automatically think of the Durham Bulls, not any particular person.

Not Chicago?

Not when the team in question is a baseball team. The first night I was at Duke I skipped freshman orientation to go to the final game of the Carolina League playoffs. Rusty Staub was the Bulls' first baseman and biggest star.

Funny how people keep trying to credit losing officers as being the best.

Rommel is still lionized in many circles, and there's a decent sized Venn between those who do and those who praise Lee. The "good" German who rose to fame mostly because of his personal relationship w Hitler, vs the Southern Gentleman who betrayed his country & his officer's oath out of "honor" but certainly NOT to preserve slavery.

Both rank very high on the Most Overrated Generals Ever list.

#63 J.E.B Stuart has no such claim. Nathan Bedford Forrest might ( probably not as he has no real record with larger formations) -- and was pretty clearly the best cavalry leader of the war.

Edmund Kirby-Smith. Who until recently had been honored with a statue in the US Capitol.

Not when the team in question is a baseball team.

You didn't say that part to begin with. You just said sports name.

You didn't say that part to begin with. You just said sports name.

YOU GOT ME!

the WHA showed incredible tone-deafness in naming the Birmingham Bulls in the late '70s

Before each Bulls game, the crowd was sprayed with fire hoses and mauled by dogs! (The joke was on the Bulls, as nobody ever showed up to their games.)

Both rank very high on the Most Overrated Generals Ever list.

Hannibal has to be the all-timer here, doesn't he? There's unquestionable brilliance on the resume, but he couldn't hit in close & late situations. Didn't just lose the season, but lost the entire franchise.

Larry Fink has been pushing globalist, WEF nonsense for years

You left "cosmopolitan" and "Soros-inspired" out of your dog whistle

Both rank very high on the Most Overrated Generals Ever list.

Military historians are playing a role in the reconsideration of many such reputations. Grant has risen in the view of many, as the leader, nor just of one army, but as a strategist for the entire war. He was ahead of his time in many regards.

Lee was, frankly, in an impossible situation. The South was woefully outgunned on a materiel and manpower level; it certainly could never "conquer" and occupy the North for any extended time or to dictate terms in the same manner the North could; its only hope was to deliver such a shock to the North that the North would lose the political will to continue. No matter how good he was on the defense, no matter how brilliant a tactician he or any of his subordinates were, he could never pull that off with the forces he had, and even if there was a chance the North would lose interest or desire, he ran out of time before that could happen because the North found a general with a strategic vision to win the war, and the tactical ability and bloody-mindedness to use the forces he had to achieve that end.

Lee was, frankly, in an impossible situation. The South was woefully outgunned on a materiel and manpower level; it certainly could never "conquer" and occupy the North for any extended time or to dictate terms in the same manner the North could; its only hope was to deliver such a shock to the North that the North would lose the political will to continue. No matter how good he was on the defense, no matter how brilliant a tactician he or any of his subordinates were, he could never pull that off with the forces he had, and even if there was a chance the North would lose interest or desire, he ran out of time before that could happen because the North found a general with a strategic vision to win the war, and the tactical ability and bloody-mindedness to use the forces he had to achieve that end.

Sounds like Washington... who found a way to make it work.

Sounds like Washington... who found a way to make it work.

Not to support Lee in any way, but Washington had plenty of help from the French, Spanish and Dutch. He probably doesn't make it work without them.

#78 Yeah. Without the French fleet's actions there's no way Cornwallis stays trapped at Yorktown. There are other huge impacts, but this is the single biggest.

And early Southern planning assumed that the Royal Navy would not permit the blockade of Southern ports. They vastly overestimated the importance of Southern cotton to Britain. I don't think this matters in the long run, but in the short run it certainly would have helped if the South could have sold their cotton and imported ... well whatever they spent the money on would help. The South had generally inferior gunpowder and their steelmaking wasn't good. It's part of the reason the South lost pretty much every significant artillery duel.

Lee is overrated because he was on the defensive against mostly incompetent opponents. When he was on the offensive his skills were largely on level with his incompetent opponents.

Now to he fair pretty much all generals in the CW were incompetent. Lee and Jackson were not incompetent or at least their record shows they could do what was mostly asked of them but then Jackson died.

The ACW is a good example of the Peter Principle in action. In particular how many really good divisional commanders were poor when moved up. Or Longstreet. Yeah there are blemishes on his record in corps command but overall only Thomas has as record as good in subordinate corps command (Jackson excelled in independent command of forces roughly corps sized) and Longstreet's record in independent command is not good (Thomas's is quite good -- maybe slower than Sherman or Grant would have liked, but not actually slow)

Meade is probably another guy

Meade's a tough guy to rank. Just a limited number of people who could manage a command the size of the Army of the Potomac. Who on the Union side was likely to have done better than Meade if moved up? Schofield. Maybe. Sheridan. Maybe. Certainly Grant didn't think he could do better than Meade. Grant gave more serious consideration to replacing Thomas than he did to replacing Meade.

EDIT: Hancock. Maybe. (His record in Corps command was good, but so was Meade's and Hooker's. Though he stayed as a corps commander longer and that might just have prepared him for army command) Howard. Doubtful

Not to support Lee in any way, but Washington had plenty of help from the French, Spanish and Dutch. He probably doesn't make it work without them.

I know - though, France didn't technically ally with the US until 1778, the Treaty of Aranjuez brining in Spain wasn't until 1779, and I don't think the Dutch came into play (though, I know they were involving in smuggling to the Americans before) until 1780. Absolutely, without the French - Cornwallis escapes Yorktown... and England subsequently spent nearly two years mostly fighting the other European powers while battles on the continent were mostly skirmishes far west and north.

However, I'm just saying... after Saratoga (Yes, Arnold) and Trenton - it was probably only a matter of time before England's other enemies seized the opportunity being presented.

On the other hand, Lee's loss at Gettysburg was catastrophic for the South... The chance of Europe intervening was always far slimmer than the southern politicos thought, but the fallout of Gettysburg (the Emancipation) slammed that door entirely shut.

No comparisons are perfect of course - but I'm just saying that Washington was far more outmatched in terms of men and materials than Lee, but he succeeded in doing what he had to do (mostly, not be destroyed while somehow still proving viable) while Lee failed. Washington served under slightly better political leadership - though, that 'advantage' was mostly a matter of a 'continental congress' managing to be disorganized and unable to coalesce around singular bad ideas like Jefferson Davis (and the patriots had far more effective ambassadors abroad) which maybe trumps the men/materials spread.

I suppose Lee was better at his job than Davis his, at least... that's probably the *real* puzzler of the later Lost Cause mythmaking. Perhaps it was an impossible job to begin with, but Jefferson Davis was still terrible at it.

Washington worked in a different context, maybe so different as to frustrate comparison. Washington's job was to keep an army in the field, and basically everywhere he went, local sympathies were with him. The British found most of the 13 states ungovernable, or governable only with unsustainable levels of occupation. That's even before one counts in international allies of the Americans.

Lee of course could count on the sympathies of white Southerners; that's the main reason the war lasted so long. But he could not project force into the North the way that occupying Union forces could do in the South. The Confederates had hope that if they invaded Maryland and Pennsylvania, they would sway the local population their way (Hey, these Rebels aren't so bad! They're just for states rights! We don't like Negroes either!) But that tended not to happen.

Secessionists in Tennessee, Louisiana, etc. were not thrilled by Union occupation. But the occupiers found less die-hard white Southerners amenable to maintaining order in cities like New Orleans, Memphis, and Nashville. And of course they started to dismantle slavery even before Emancipation, finding lots of black allies and kicking the prop out from under Rebel power.

/huge overgeneralizations, every one of them open to qualification :)

The chance of Europe intervening was always far slimmer than the southern politicos thought, but the fallout of Gettysburg (the Emancipation)

The EP was 6 months before Gettysburg.

Answer me this: Why is a money manager concerning itself with anything except financial returns?

Typically, because they have a long-term position and want to account for risks that aren’t accounted for in quarterly financials. That’s all ESG is, a shorthand for non-financial risks.

If you don’t see them as relevant, or believe that the relevant ones are sufficiently baked into the financials — don’t invest in that fund. It’s a free country.

Changing sports, for some reason after decades of being aware of not only Alabama's unfortunate history of racial relations but also much of the minutiae of the World Hockey Association, it occurred to me only this weekend, while reading a newish book on the Birmingham movement of 1963, that the WHA showed incredible tone-deafness in naming the Birmingham Bulls in the late '70s. I get that they were the relocated Toronto Toros, & that a bunch of Canadians weren't likely to be particularly acquainted with local Civil Rights history in Alabama, but my god, it's almost akin to changing the Tulsa Drillers' name to the Massacres.

Maybe it was just in response to the Atlanta Flames (the greatest name in sports history) being right up the road? EDIT: The history of the Flames' name is exactly what you think it is. From Wiki:

Cousins named the franchise the Flames in homage to the burning of Atlanta by United States Army General William Sherman during the American Civil War.

Typically, because they have a long-term position and want to account for risks that aren’t accounted for in quarterly financials. That’s all ESG is, a shorthand for non-financial risks.

As a money manager myself, I'd say that accounting for direct business risks is difficult enough, accounting for societal risks is pretty much impossible and those are risks a single company can't solve. I'm all for solving the problems of global warming, but I still want my energy companies drilling for oil if its economically valuable.

If you don’t see them as relevant, or believe that the relevant ones are sufficiently baked into the financials — don’t invest in that fund. It’s a free country.

This is true. Larry Fink is just trying to serve his customers and he thinks they want ESG factors accounted for. My clients don't, and if they did I will have to either start accounting for them or one of us needs to fire the other.

but he succeeded in doing what he had to do

But this is a pretty Joe Morganesque type of analysis - the manager of the winning team is always brilliant, while the guy in the other dugout stunk it up, because the former's front office was able to acquire an MVP-caliber bat in the middle of the game that the latter's couldn't.

Economically viable is kind of the problem though. We've set up the worst solution to be the most profitable solution

But this is a pretty Joe Morganesque type of analysis - the manager of the winning team is always brilliant,

Bob Brenly accepts this challenge.

And then bungles it so Tony LaRussa can win but then Tony is like, "hold my beer".

Bob Brenly accepts this challenge.

Joe Maddon and Terry Francona jointly laugh at his puny attempts to piss away a World Series.

Cousins named the franchise the Flames in homage to the burning of Atlanta by United States Army General William Sherman during the American Civil War.

It's a better name than Crackers (or, improbably, Black Crackers)...