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.
The "genocide" happening in our cities on a daily basis is ordinary crime, of the type we have always had, in which people mainly kill people like themselves. Nobody ignores it. It is the main business of the police, and in most major American cities, it has been going down steadily for decades. In many major cities, homicides are at lows not seen in the lives of people now middle-aged. Mass killings are a relatively new phenomenon, that springs from different causes, and will likely have different solutions, than ordinary homicides. I should hardly have to remind a conservative of the wisdom of Adam Smith. He attributed much of the material improvement of his time to the division of labor. Moral and social improvement also profit from the division of labor.
And you say, without a shred of evidence to back it up, that it's racially-motivated. And you keep saying it after two mass shooters finally killed some non-white folks and got the same reaction other mass killers got. That's shameful.
Indeed it is. It always is. For all killings. But you're the one who keeps trolling about white victims, and that being why anyone cares about mass killings. This time, as well as in Dayton, it wasn't a big bunch of white victims. Look at who died.
We only seem to get worked up as a country when innocent white people are killed randomly with assault weapons.
Did you even look at who died in El Paso and Dayton? I had been considering a comment to the effect that the real tragedy after El Paso and Dayton was that you wouldn't be able to use that bit anymore, but decided it was in bad taste. Maybe not.
I now have an excuse to tell one of my favorite stories. Decades ago, I asked a Jewish friend of mine (at least I thought he was a friend) about the little black boxes -- tfillen -- that I had seen Jewish men wearing on their foreheads while worshiping. I asked what was in them.
My "friend" asked me if I knew the story of Abraham. In those days, I was pretty conversant with the Hebrew scriptures for a goy, so I showed off my ecumenical knowledge, including the bit about Abraham's covenant with G_d and circumcision as the symbol of that covenant.
My "friend" asked if I had ever wondered what happened to the foreskin afterward. I hadn't. He told me, with a straight face, that it was put into the tfillen so worshipers would be reminded of the covenant.
Made sense to me, and years later, as he probably knew I would, I recited this "fact" in mixed company, to predictable reactions.
If I ever find the sonofabitch again......
I think the exact opposite. While fellow faculty members would be right to come out and say that they don't approve of her statements, I think the right course for the institution is to say that she speaks for herself and not the institution. Full stop. As for teaching assignments, her "unwelcome ideas," to the extent that they are ideas at all, are not germane to any of the required 1-L courses she previously taught, so she has no more right to express them in Torts or Contracts than I would have to spend more than de minimis class time on the doings of the Philadelphia sports franchises. (In theory, a dean could tell me to STFU about that, period, and stick to my knitting, but no sane dean would bother over trifles.) If the Penn administration thinks, as it obviously does, that her expressed ideas raise a legitimate suspicion among students that she might not be fair to them, removing her from required courses, while keeping her on the books and teaching elective courses (which most faculty members prefer anyway) makes perfect sense.
When I was born, circumcision was the norm even among the goyim. (I was born in a military hospital, and suspect that the surgeons and the barbers trained together, but that's another story.) The reasons were sanitary rather than religious, obviously. And remembering my sanitary habits as a youngster, I was probably better off not having a foreskin. I think the first time I ever saw an uncircumcised penis was in a porno movie. While I don't doubt, veronica, that you know people who regretted circumcision, my own experience has been that nobody much cared, having nothing to compare it with.
For years I had a theory that most mass-media beer advertising actually helped Budweiser. The ads, for whatever brand, were largely generic celebrations of Beer As Such, not ads for the specific brand. I always thought such ads promoted the market leader, Budweiser, rather than the particular brand that paid for the ad.
The moderate Democrats — I use the term with some hesitation because Mayor Pete certainly had it right that the Republicans will paint any Democrat as a gun-grabbing, baby-killing soshulist — basically spent Tuesday night selling Moderation As Such, to the benefit of Joe “Budweiser” Biden, rather than their particular brand.
That is one of many reasons I pay them little attention, and focus on the small part of what they say that has factual (or potentially factual) content.
Another guy I have no problem with and would probably be more than fine. At this point I feel as though I'm living Keynes' comparison of the stock market to a beauty contest where the voters are asked not to pick the one they think most beautiful, but the one they think the other voters will pick.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
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.
"
The "genocide" happening in our cities on a daily basis is ordinary crime, of the type we have always had, in which people mainly kill people like themselves. Nobody ignores it. It is the main business of the police, and in most major American cities, it has been going down steadily for decades. In many major cities, homicides are at lows not seen in the lives of people now middle-aged. Mass killings are a relatively new phenomenon, that springs from different causes, and will likely have different solutions, than ordinary homicides. I should hardly have to remind a conservative of the wisdom of Adam Smith. He attributed much of the material improvement of his time to the division of labor. Moral and social improvement also profit from the division of labor.
"
And you say, without a shred of evidence to back it up, that it's racially-motivated. And you keep saying it after two mass shooters finally killed some non-white folks and got the same reaction other mass killers got. That's shameful.
"
I have my own 10-point plan on gun regulation that can't possibly pass either. In its absence, I'll take what I can get.
"
The race of the victims is just statistics.
Indeed it is. It always is. For all killings. But you're the one who keeps trolling about white victims, and that being why anyone cares about mass killings. This time, as well as in Dayton, it wasn't a big bunch of white victims. Look at who died.
"
We only seem to get worked up as a country when innocent white people are killed randomly with assault weapons.
Did you even look at who died in El Paso and Dayton? I had been considering a comment to the effect that the real tragedy after El Paso and Dayton was that you wouldn't be able to use that bit anymore, but decided it was in bad taste. Maybe not.
On “Mayor Pete”
Get off of my lawn!
On “Who Are We Kidding? Vote for Biden”
Also, if you don’t wear it like Tulsi, don’t campaign in a white pant suit.
Maybe we can revisit the question I asked in the Harris thread.
On “Wednesday Writs for 7/31”
Poe.
On “Democratic Debates: The Moderates Strike Back”
Did something happen to a bunch of comments here?
On “Andrew Yang: Think. Different.”
That's a great joke. I almost inserted it into my story, but thought it would be too much.
"
I now have an excuse to tell one of my favorite stories. Decades ago, I asked a Jewish friend of mine (at least I thought he was a friend) about the little black boxes -- tfillen -- that I had seen Jewish men wearing on their foreheads while worshiping. I asked what was in them.
My "friend" asked me if I knew the story of Abraham. In those days, I was pretty conversant with the Hebrew scriptures for a goy, so I showed off my ecumenical knowledge, including the bit about Abraham's covenant with G_d and circumcision as the symbol of that covenant.
My "friend" asked if I had ever wondered what happened to the foreskin afterward. I hadn't. He told me, with a straight face, that it was put into the tfillen so worshipers would be reminded of the covenant.
Made sense to me, and years later, as he probably knew I would, I recited this "fact" in mixed company, to predictable reactions.
If I ever find the sonofabitch again......
On “Wednesday Writs for 7/31”
I think the exact opposite. While fellow faculty members would be right to come out and say that they don't approve of her statements, I think the right course for the institution is to say that she speaks for herself and not the institution. Full stop. As for teaching assignments, her "unwelcome ideas," to the extent that they are ideas at all, are not germane to any of the required 1-L courses she previously taught, so she has no more right to express them in Torts or Contracts than I would have to spend more than de minimis class time on the doings of the Philadelphia sports franchises. (In theory, a dean could tell me to STFU about that, period, and stick to my knitting, but no sane dean would bother over trifles.) If the Penn administration thinks, as it obviously does, that her expressed ideas raise a legitimate suspicion among students that she might not be fair to them, removing her from required courses, while keeping her on the books and teaching elective courses (which most faculty members prefer anyway) makes perfect sense.
On “Andrew Yang: Think. Different.”
When I was born, circumcision was the norm even among the goyim. (I was born in a military hospital, and suspect that the surgeons and the barbers trained together, but that's another story.) The reasons were sanitary rather than religious, obviously. And remembering my sanitary habits as a youngster, I was probably better off not having a foreskin. I think the first time I ever saw an uncircumcised penis was in a porno movie. While I don't doubt, veronica, that you know people who regretted circumcision, my own experience has been that nobody much cared, having nothing to compare it with.
On “Democratic Debates: The Moderates Strike Back”
For years I had a theory that most mass-media beer advertising actually helped Budweiser. The ads, for whatever brand, were largely generic celebrations of Beer As Such, not ads for the specific brand. I always thought such ads promoted the market leader, Budweiser, rather than the particular brand that paid for the ad.
The moderate Democrats — I use the term with some hesitation because Mayor Pete certainly had it right that the Republicans will paint any Democrat as a gun-grabbing, baby-killing soshulist — basically spent Tuesday night selling Moderation As Such, to the benefit of Joe “Budweiser” Biden, rather than their particular brand.
"
That is one of many reasons I pay them little attention, and focus on the small part of what they say that has factual (or potentially factual) content.
On “Booker Could Actually Be Good at the Job”
Another guy I have no problem with and would probably be more than fine. At this point I feel as though I'm living Keynes' comparison of the stock market to a beauty contest where the voters are asked not to pick the one they think most beautiful, but the one they think the other voters will pick.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.