They probably don't know that for sure, only that that is likely what happened. And precisely because it is likely what happened, it wouldn't be news. If they knew it for sure, it might be mentioned somewhere in the 17th paragraph and nobody reading the story would pay it any attention. Dog bites man.
Probably not. What he'll likely do is pretend that what he really meant is some general proposition no one disputes, probably because it is platitudinous, and crow that no one has disputed it.
That's not the way news articles are generally written. If you want to change the whole general practice of journalism, fine, make that general case. But there is nothing special about this story.
Jaybird seems to think that the truth will emerge quickly and all at once. That it hasn't so far -- though we know a lot more now than we did 24 hours ago -- suggests to him, for reasons that are, to say the least, obscure, that no one is trying to find out. That's not how it works. We will get more and more information as the people Jaybird thinks aren't looking find out things definite enough to publish, like, for example, the existence and quality of video. He may "think that'd be something we'd know by now," but uncovering facts is hard work and may take longer that he thinks "we" expect.
They can call and ask all they want, but they can't print until they get answers. From my time representing prison officials, I know how slow they are in answering questions from their own lawyers. I can't imagine they're any quicker with reporters.
I'm not sure what that's responsive to. I was addressing the history on this site. But, hey, if people converted on SSM -- and I always thought they would if it got through and they saw the results -- I'm happy.
The point some of us have been making is precisely that, protestations to the contrary, they won't. And we're tired of the tease.
That said, I believe in the possibility of redemption and will welcome converts. It's just not the way to bet.
Several people here insist that Trump is awful and say they will not vote for him in 2020. When they say they will either stay home or vote third-party, I take them at their word, think that is the best we can hope for from them, and am happy to take what I can get. There's no reason to think they will ever vote for any Democrat who could conceivably contend for the nomination, and I'm OK with that. If they want to jerk off or vote their consciences, for those who see a difference between the two, I'm OK with that as long as I don't have to watch.
But some folks won't accept live and let live. They tease us by setting out conditions on which they might consider doing something of some marginal political value -- voting for the only general election candidate that can take the White House other than Trump -- and expect us to take them seriously. And it always amounts to the same thing: I'll gladly vote for the Democrat if the party nominates a Republican. Mayor Pete has it right. No matter who the Democrats nominate, the nominee will be painted as an evul, gun-grabbing, baby-killing soshulist. And from the point of view of the teasers, they are probably right. It gets old.
The Board of ESPN damn well ought to be invested. Nobody says different. (As for the merits of the decision, as I've said repeatedly, I don't care enough to have an opinion.) What's odd is two people who DON'T watch ESPN -- you and Pinky -- being invested. Was that unclear the first few times, or are you just dodging again?
Unless I have completely misread Sam, his point is just the opposite. Nobody cares if YOU watch ESPN, either the "non-political" version or the "political" version. The "oddity" is that people who DON'T watch ESPN -- and not for political reasons -- are invested in its programming decisions.
I didn't know the political leanings of most of my teachers in most subjects, unless I had some extracurricular knowledge. This is nothing special.
As far as just calling the game is concerned, I remember John Roberts saying all he does is call balls and strikes. It made me think of Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem. One night, he was out drinking with some fellow umpires. The first boasted: "I call 'em as I see 'em." The second replied: "I calls them as they are." Klem nursed his drink a bit, then said: "They ain't nothing 'til I call them."
There were and are no "shows" that were pro- or-anti-Trump. Trump wasn't that big a part of this until he stuck his nose into sports politics issues himself. Several hosts and regulars could be identified as pro- or anti-Trump on general principles, or from past non-sport shows they did, and sometimes by specific comments, Trump-related or not. Or just because they seemed to be decent human beings and, therefore, the most logical inference was that they were, therefore, anti-Trump, whatever they said on their shows. But politics, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, just wasn't that big a deal. Now if a network executive wants to get rid of even the minor amount of politics that existed on ESPN, I have no quarrel with that. Not even if it's clear what specific politics he wanted to spike, as long as the actual policy, whatever its motivations, was even-handed.
Maybe you should have been watching ESPN, which you said below you don't. Then you'd know.
But to be neighborly about it, there were plenty of talking heads who were anti Trump and you could often tell by looking at them even if they didn't say a word. Big-time sports being a largely conservative enterprise, however, there were plenty of pro-Trump people -- well-known Republican athletes, and owners, by and large. Trump himself, however, was rarely a sports politics issue unless he made himself one, which he did often. And since he did it himself, he can't complain if people talked back. If they did. His positions got quite a bit of support in sports talk circles by people who would be appalled at the thought that they were taking a political position.
I go back to what I said last time this subject came up: it's only "politics" if you disagree with it. If it's politics you agree with, then it isn't politics, it's just normal, dammit. Normal human beings expressing normal communal solidarity. That said, I never had the impression that there was that much political talk on ESPN or sports talk radio, didn't much care about what there was, and tuned it out, whatever its flavor, because I don't take my politics from sports talking heads or Vinnie from Syosset. I have no objection to a sports programming executive deciding to spike politics from sports shows for business reasons, even if the business decision was driven by only certain types of politics, as it surely was. I'll continue to ignore the continuing, traditional sports politics that no one would dare complain about and watch the game.
The problem is that the Democrats who do know about guns, and there are lots of them, usually can't get in front of the issue for political reasons, and the Democrats who can, politically, get in front of the issue don't tend to know about guns.
As I said upthread, I have my own 10-point plan, which reflects my own considerable knowledge of guns. But even though I think it's a reasonable plan and I believe large numbers of people would agree, it is politically DOA. It's not politically DOA because some Democrats don't know gun lingo -- though it doesn't help matters that they don't -- it's politically DOA for well-understood reasons. Being able to talk gunspeak won't help with that.
That's an interesting point. Homicide is largely the work of poor folk, who mainly kill people like themselves. Mike's ancestors got drunk and killed fellow Irishmen. Mine got drunk and killed fellow Italians. It's probably true even in Louisville that most killers kill folks like themselves, for the simple reason that that is who they hang with and who get the opportunity to piss them off.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Epstein Dead”
They probably don't know that for sure, only that that is likely what happened. And precisely because it is likely what happened, it wouldn't be news. If they knew it for sure, it might be mentioned somewhere in the 17th paragraph and nobody reading the story would pay it any attention. Dog bites man.
"
Now Michael, no fair bringing common sense into this.
"
This early? Not at all. Read a newspaper now and then.
"
Have you seen any news articles talk about the footage?
I wouldn't expect any until somebody had something to report about it.
I’ve seen no shortage of tweets yelling “THE CAMERAS WERE ON THE FRITZ” but none of them were sourced.
Exactly.
Have you seen a news article talk about the security tapes?
Not yet. See above.
Because I haven’t.
And you won't until somebody actually has something, which is as it should be.
"
Probably not. What he'll likely do is pretend that what he really meant is some general proposition no one disputes, probably because it is platitudinous, and crow that no one has disputed it.
"
That's not the way news articles are generally written. If you want to change the whole general practice of journalism, fine, make that general case. But there is nothing special about this story.
"
Jaybird seems to think that the truth will emerge quickly and all at once. That it hasn't so far -- though we know a lot more now than we did 24 hours ago -- suggests to him, for reasons that are, to say the least, obscure, that no one is trying to find out. That's not how it works. We will get more and more information as the people Jaybird thinks aren't looking find out things definite enough to publish, like, for example, the existence and quality of video. He may "think that'd be something we'd know by now," but uncovering facts is hard work and may take longer that he thinks "we" expect.
"
They can call and ask all they want, but they can't print until they get answers. From my time representing prison officials, I know how slow they are in answering questions from their own lawyers. I can't imagine they're any quicker with reporters.
"
What makes you think they haven't?
On “The Answer, My Friend, is Blowin’ in the Wind? Perhaps.”
in 44 years of spending most of my time with white men, I just don’t see any of that
As a mentor of mine once said: "We don't know who discovered water, but we can be pretty damn sure it wasn't a fish."
On “Endorsed: Other Options”
I'm not sure what that's responsive to. I was addressing the history on this site. But, hey, if people converted on SSM -- and I always thought they would if it got through and they saw the results -- I'm happy.
"
Sounds good, but there's an actual history on this, which those interested can assess for themselves, and I'm content to let them.
"
We've tried. It never gets anywhere.
"
The point some of us have been making is precisely that, protestations to the contrary, they won't. And we're tired of the tease.
That said, I believe in the possibility of redemption and will welcome converts. It's just not the way to bet.
"
Several people here insist that Trump is awful and say they will not vote for him in 2020. When they say they will either stay home or vote third-party, I take them at their word, think that is the best we can hope for from them, and am happy to take what I can get. There's no reason to think they will ever vote for any Democrat who could conceivably contend for the nomination, and I'm OK with that. If they want to jerk off or vote their consciences, for those who see a difference between the two, I'm OK with that as long as I don't have to watch.
But some folks won't accept live and let live. They tease us by setting out conditions on which they might consider doing something of some marginal political value -- voting for the only general election candidate that can take the White House other than Trump -- and expect us to take them seriously. And it always amounts to the same thing: I'll gladly vote for the Democrat if the party nominates a Republican. Mayor Pete has it right. No matter who the Democrats nominate, the nominee will be painted as an evul, gun-grabbing, baby-killing soshulist. And from the point of view of the teasers, they are probably right. It gets old.
On “The Answer, My Friend, is Blowin’ in the Wind? Perhaps.”
That “sir” at the end is key, an marks it as the act of a proper civilized man. You just don’t see that in ghetto drive-bys.
Well bless your heart.
On “On Changing The Subject”
The Board of ESPN damn well ought to be invested. Nobody says different. (As for the merits of the decision, as I've said repeatedly, I don't care enough to have an opinion.) What's odd is two people who DON'T watch ESPN -- you and Pinky -- being invested. Was that unclear the first few times, or are you just dodging again?
"
Unless I have completely misread Sam, his point is just the opposite. Nobody cares if YOU watch ESPN, either the "non-political" version or the "political" version. The "oddity" is that people who DON'T watch ESPN -- and not for political reasons -- are invested in its programming decisions.
"
I didn't know the political leanings of most of my teachers in most subjects, unless I had some extracurricular knowledge. This is nothing special.
As far as just calling the game is concerned, I remember John Roberts saying all he does is call balls and strikes. It made me think of Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem. One night, he was out drinking with some fellow umpires. The first boasted: "I call 'em as I see 'em." The second replied: "I calls them as they are." Klem nursed his drink a bit, then said: "They ain't nothing 'til I call them."
"
Live by the sword.....
"
There were and are no "shows" that were pro- or-anti-Trump. Trump wasn't that big a part of this until he stuck his nose into sports politics issues himself. Several hosts and regulars could be identified as pro- or anti-Trump on general principles, or from past non-sport shows they did, and sometimes by specific comments, Trump-related or not. Or just because they seemed to be decent human beings and, therefore, the most logical inference was that they were, therefore, anti-Trump, whatever they said on their shows. But politics, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, just wasn't that big a deal. Now if a network executive wants to get rid of even the minor amount of politics that existed on ESPN, I have no quarrel with that. Not even if it's clear what specific politics he wanted to spike, as long as the actual policy, whatever its motivations, was even-handed.
"
Maybe you should have been watching ESPN, which you said below you don't. Then you'd know.
But to be neighborly about it, there were plenty of talking heads who were anti Trump and you could often tell by looking at them even if they didn't say a word. Big-time sports being a largely conservative enterprise, however, there were plenty of pro-Trump people -- well-known Republican athletes, and owners, by and large. Trump himself, however, was rarely a sports politics issue unless he made himself one, which he did often. And since he did it himself, he can't complain if people talked back. If they did. His positions got quite a bit of support in sports talk circles by people who would be appalled at the thought that they were taking a political position.
"
I go back to what I said last time this subject came up: it's only "politics" if you disagree with it. If it's politics you agree with, then it isn't politics, it's just normal, dammit. Normal human beings expressing normal communal solidarity. That said, I never had the impression that there was that much political talk on ESPN or sports talk radio, didn't much care about what there was, and tuned it out, whatever its flavor, because I don't take my politics from sports talking heads or Vinnie from Syosset. I have no objection to a sports programming executive deciding to spike politics from sports shows for business reasons, even if the business decision was driven by only certain types of politics, as it surely was. I'll continue to ignore the continuing, traditional sports politics that no one would dare complain about and watch the game.
On “The Answer, My Friend, is Blowin’ in the Wind? Perhaps.”
The problem is that the Democrats who do know about guns, and there are lots of them, usually can't get in front of the issue for political reasons, and the Democrats who can, politically, get in front of the issue don't tend to know about guns.
As I said upthread, I have my own 10-point plan, which reflects my own considerable knowledge of guns. But even though I think it's a reasonable plan and I believe large numbers of people would agree, it is politically DOA. It's not politically DOA because some Democrats don't know gun lingo -- though it doesn't help matters that they don't -- it's politically DOA for well-understood reasons. Being able to talk gunspeak won't help with that.
"
That's an interesting point. Homicide is largely the work of poor folk, who mainly kill people like themselves. Mike's ancestors got drunk and killed fellow Irishmen. Mine got drunk and killed fellow Italians. It's probably true even in Louisville that most killers kill folks like themselves, for the simple reason that that is who they hang with and who get the opportunity to piss them off.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.