For Insiders this week I wrote about eight top 100 prospects who had down years in 2016; that’s not all prospects who had off years, just eight I chose to discuss. I held my usual Klawchat on Thursday. For Paste I reviewed the fun, family boardgame Saloon Tycoon, where players build across their boards and also add up to three levels as they build upward.
You can pre-order my book, Smart Baseball, ahead of its scheduled release on April 25, 2017. I promise I’ll have it written by then.
Several people I know have new books out recently, and while I haven’t read them yet, I wanted to highlight the titles here:
• Jessica Luther’s Unsportsmanlike Conduct: College Football and the Politics of Rape
• Alan Sepinwall’s TV (The Book): Two Experts Pick the Greatest American Shows of All Time (with Matt Zoller Seitz)
• Geoff Schwartz’s Eat My Schwartz: Our Story of NFL Football, Food, Family, and Faith (with his brother Mitch)
I’ve been sending out a weekly email newsletter with links to all of my content and some additional notes or thoughts that don’t fit anywhere else; you can sign up here if you just don’t have enough Klaw in your life.
And now, the links…
- Scientific American asked the four remaining Presidential candidates to answer twenty questions on major topics in science and has published the answers of the three who responded. (Gary Johnson hasn’t deigned to reply.) My takeaway: Trump remains a terrifying anti-science candidate, particularly in his denial of climate change (note the scare quotes), while Stein comes off as a serious person here as opposed to the pandering crackpot she’s been playing on Twitter.
- VICE’s Noisey site has an outstanding piece on the history and music of Homestar Runner, one of my favorite cartoons from any medium.
- BuzzFeed is capable of some great investigative journalism (when they’re not stealing other people’s content on the Tasty or for their videos), like this piece on police departments “closing” rape cases without investigating them. They focus on Baltimore County, Maryland, where even men convicted of previous assaults were getting away with rapes because the cops couldn’t be bothered.
- More great investigative journalism, this time from the Houston Chronicle: The backwater known as Texas has been denying special education services to special needs kids because they arbitrarily capped the rate of kids eliglible to receive those services at 8.5%.
- Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stands accused of, but not charged with, taking cash for favors from large donors, according to court documents obtained by the Guardian despite a court’s irregular order that the documents be destroyed.
- Mother Jones writers about the dwindling numbers of black teachers in urban areas and the potential impact on black students.
- How did a young power couple in Afghanistan, including the youngest woman in that country’s nascent Parliament, end up in Nebraska? The Omaha World-Herald has their harrowing story, from death threats in their home country to entry-level jobs at McDonald’s and Home Depot as refugees here.
- Experts on hate groups say white supremacists see Donald Trump as their “last stand.” Well, when he’s bragging about the 88 military advisors helping him, how could they think otherwise?
- I don’t even know what to make of the story that Peter Thiel says Trump will nominate him to the Supreme Court if elected. Thiel is the billionaire who funded the lawsuits that took down Gawker and Nick Denton; perhaps he believes that, but as much as I find Trump as President a horrifying prospect, this seems like Thiel’s own fantasy.
- Speaking of Gawker, Univision, the new owner of Gawker Media, chose to delete a handful of posts related to ongoing lawsuits (some baseless); the chief news officer at Univision agreed to a long conversation with Gizmodo about these decisions. It’s long and meandering but there’s a lot of meat in here, and while the deletions don’t look good at a glance, I think Univision is also offering some strong support for its writers going forward, too.
- The Scientific Parent explains why the “too much, too soon” anti-vaxxer argument is wrong. It’s ignorant of basic science: Your kid is ingesting more pathogens in a typical day than s/he’ll get in all the vaccines s/he ever receives, and the metals that vaccine deniers freak out over are present in food, water, even breast milk.
- Dr. Bob Sears, who’s been accused of ‘selling’ medical exemptions to California’s new mandatory schoolkid vaccination law, may lose his license for medical negligence instead. Whatever gets these charlatans out of the medical business is fine with me.
- Meanwhile, nearly 10,000 New Jersey schoolkids skipped vaccinations this year. If you live there, call your state legislator and ask him or her to sponsor a bill eliminating non-medical exemptions.
- Trump’s campaign claims he’s given “tens of millions of dollars” to charity but the Washington Post found no proof.
- A writer for the National Review claims that the left is “weaponizing” sports, citing the NCAA’s decision to pull championship events from North Carolina as a result of that state passing Hate Bill 2. He drops the ball (!) in sentence two, however, since HB2’s biggest effect is that it local governments from making sexual orientation a protected status in any anti-discrimination ordinances. It’s not about bathrooms; it’s about saying you can’t be fired just because you’re gay.
- The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is chaired by an anti-science Republican and Christian Scientist, Lamar Smith (TX). Physicist Lawrence Krauss writes that Smith’s been politicizing scientific research, including that related to climate change and ocean acidification, in his little reign of terror, which will likely continue as long as Republicans control the House. And don’t be fooled by the religion’s name – Christian Science is about as anti-science as any cult can get, eschewing medicine and claiming that sickness is caused by an absence of “right thinking.”
- Media Matters writes about ongoing criticism of the NY Times‘ perceived bias against Hillary Clinton. I’ve always thought of the Times as a clear, left-leaning publication, so their coverage of HRC’s campaign has surprised me this year.
- Somalia is a failed state and has been without a real central government for a quarter century now. The northern section of the country calls itself Somaliland, and is seeking internal recognition of its independence. There are some recent examples in east Africa that argue against it, as Eritrea and South Sudan have been plagued by fighting and corruption since their secessions from Ethiopia and Sudan, respectively. Somaliland isn’t leaving a real country, however; there is no competing authority to their own bootstrapped government.
- The U.S. ended sanctions on Myanmar, but it’s not clear Myanmar (ex-Burma) has actually earned this economic reward. Aung San Suu Kyi’s acquiescence has left many observers puzzled, and the linked piece from the BBC tries to explain it.
- Author Lionel Shriver (We Need to Talk About Kevin)’s address to the Brisbane Writers Festival on cultural appropriation caused a substantial backlash against her claims that the term is the result of “runaway political correctness.”
- The Washington Post‘s editorial board wrote that the Hillary Clinton email story is “out of control” relative to its actual importance. I agree; she made a mistake, a significant one, but one that pales in comparison to those of her opponent in this election, such as Trump calling again for Hillary’s assassination.
- U.S. colleges continue to protect athlete rapists because sports. At UNC a rape victim went public to force the school and the county to stop delaying their investigation. Two women at the University of Richmond did the same, one revealing that a school administrator said the rapist had a right to “finish.”
- New York Knicks guard Derrick Rose stands accused of gang-raping a woman, and Julie DiCaro writes for Fansided about the civil suit that’s going on right now – including his lawyers’ strange choice not to try to settle the case.
- Mental Floss shows six math concepts demonstrated via crochet, with the first two (the hyperbolic plane and the Lorenz manifold) the most interesting.
- Apple’s been getting killed – rightly so – for the iPhone 7’s lack of an analog headphone jack, but VICE’s Motherboard points out the iPhone 6+ has its own very serious engineering flaw.
- Back in the 1960s, the sugar industry paid Harvard researchers for favorable results, part of a decades-long nutritional con that had us afraid of fat but thinking sugar was mostly harmless.
- Colin Kaepernick’s protest is working, writes Josh Levin at Slate. Given the widespread conversation he started, I’d have to agree: He used a non-violent, non-disruptive act to make his point, and we’ve spent several weeks talking about all aspects of it, from race in America to the purpose of jingoistic displays at sporting events where many of the players aren’t even from the U.S.
- Bayer’s pending acquisition of Monsanto has raised questions about Monsanto’s GM seeds business as some farmers find the returns don’t justify the higher costs. This piece from the WSJ is remarkably balanced, avoiding “frankenfoods!” hysteria and discussing pros and cons of genetically modified seeds. One point of note: Weeds that are or have evolved to become resistant to glyphosate have already started invading farms with GM seeds.
- You’ve probably heard a lot about the Native Americans’ opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline, which will cross much of their land, but before this NPR piece I hadn’t heard much from the pipeline company’s side. For example, I didn’t know that this pipeline will cover the same route as an existing natural gas pipeline installed in 1982, or that the areas the tribes affected say are sacred may not be so.
- Why did the Governor of Kentucky speak before a hate group and threaten armed sedition if Clinton wins? Why does nobody care about an elected official doing this?
- Radiolab had a great podcast describing the ordeal of a girl who turned 18 without any documentation to prove she exists. It has taken her over a year just to acquire some of the things we take for granted, and she’s still fighting for a social security number.
- A man in nearby Smyrna, Delaware, reports that this relaxing tea better fucking work, according to The Onion.
My two issues with Hillary’s emails.
1. The partisan defense is effectively that it’s a nothingburger because nothing bad happened. So if I drive home drunk and nothing happened, it’s apparently okay. Got it.
2. If someone was going for a lower level position this would unquestionably DQ her. President? No big deal.
And we contrast that with the Monster of Trump.
Pretty fallacious arguments there, Brian.
Stu, could you expand on that? I happen to agree with Brian’s second point, though I disagree with his first, because he didn’t take it far enough. It’s more along the lines of we don’t know if anything happened, but it’s entirely likely that he hit something (aka, if you really believe that a foreign intelligence service didn’t hack HRC’s emails, you’re crazy; the FBI said the security on it was less than that which GMail uses, and GMail accounts are hacked on a daily basis). If you don’t believe his second point, btw, look up David Petraeus, who exposed classified information to someone who had the proper clearance but not the need to know and was prosecuted for it (rightly, and it didn’t help when he lied about it to investigators).
Another reader and I had a brief exchange on this over the last week or so, and he made some interesting points, but just because HRC is running against the most terrifying and incompetent candidate we’ve ever seen doesn’t mean we should ignore this very legitimate security issue. It’s certainly not going to make me vote for Trump, but ignoring poor decision making because it stands next to evil (that’s not too strong, is it?) is just asking to be surprised by more bad decisions in the future. Recognizing a problem doesn’t mean you have to use it as a DQing factor in your voting.
Jeremy’s view is pretty much mine. HRC screwed up, but we have two choices here and the other one is a Nazi who’s screwed up worse and is proposing disastrous policies, so we’re stuck.
I would argue there is a very large difference between drunk driving and the email server. If you drive drunk, you know it’s wrong, and you choose to assume the risk to yourself and to others, anyhow. That’s enough to fulfill the legal definition of intent.
By contrast, I find it to be very believable that Clinton did not actually understand what she was doing when she decided to use a private mail server. First, I’ve helped quite a few people of that generation with their computers, and they tend to be pretty clueless. That includes some VERY smart people; I have a colleague who has a Pulitzer for history, and I’ve had to explain multiple times (four, to be exact) how to get photos off a digital camera. And cybersecurity/hacking are considerably more difficult subjects to grasp, particularly in 2008, when they weren’t yet in headlines. Second, Colin Powell and Condi Rice used the private server setup, and passed that info on to HRC. I can absolutely envision someone who doesn’t really get tech all that well saying something like, “Sure–do whatever they did.”
To be equivalent to drunk driving, you have to believe that at some point. Clinton said/thought, “Yeah, this puts national security at risk, but–you know, it’s just easier this way. I’ll take my chances.” I don’t believe she would be so cavalier.
CB,
You make a good point about the lack of computer skills/knowledge as a possible culprit here, but I’d counter two of your points. 1) Many, even most, drunk drivers, do not think they’re doing anything wrong either, because “I’m only buzzed,” “I drive better when I’ve had a couple” (seriously, heard that one a couple times) or some other bullshit excuse. 2) HRC’s allegation that Powell and Rice told her to use a private server has been denied by both of them. I’d tend in this case to believe that there was either a miscommunication or that HRC is outright lying to deflect attention/blame, because neither of those two have reason to lie about it.
Comparing Hillary to Petraeus is silly. Hillary – sure – exposed classified information to potentially getting out there. Petraeus INTENTIONALLY gave classified information to a journalist he was having an affair with.
That Scientific American piece shows that at least Stein can sound like a serious politician. But there’s only so much blame that Stein can place on the “corporate media” in terms of masking the substance of many of Stein’s policy positions (even the “unrealistic ones”) with her crackpot pandering and other missteps (e.g. statement about Harambe? Really?). The piece also shows how shallow Trump’s policies are even the few times he can articulate something resembling a policy position.
There is no evidence Hillary endangered anyone’s life (unlike a drink driver) and it seems unlikely her lax view of security will be an issue as President. It seems pretty unlikely she’ll have a private server again. I’m actually bothered more by what the private email means with respect to her judgment and lack of transparency. It was terrible judgment and done mostly, if not exclusively to protect herself. The second point about what would happen to a lower level person is wholly irrelevant. She isn’t a lower level person. I get treated differently than a partner at my firm who is more valuable to my firm. And I get treated differently than a first year associate. It would be foolish to treat us all exactly the same. And there’s Keith’s point about Trump. I really do not want him as President. Especially since if he wins, it will likely mean the House and Senate are Relublican controlled.
“If you don’t believe his second point, btw, look up David Petraeus, who exposed classified information to someone who had the proper clearance but not the need to know and was prosecuted for it ”
Of course, there remains ZERO evidence Hillary violated the law, and TONS of evidence Petraeus did. Pretending the lack of prosecution is about her status, and not the lack of law breaking, is one of the many ways we’ve allowed the media to not do its job of being referee of what is actual fact and what is fabrication.
Meanwhile, if we want to talk about different standards of treatment, how many americans know that trump has been fined by the IRS for violations of tax law? How many people know that he outright bribed two attorney generals to not investigate his fraudulent transactions? WHen we talk about the clinton foundation being problematic because it has allowed people access to Hillary that maybe shouldn’t have it, how many people understand that those people with problematic access have routinely had their requests denied? WHile, on the other hand, the trump foundation is used to, for example, make trump money when organizations donate to his foundation which then makes a charitable contribution and then the organization rents out trumps properties for more than the charitable donation? How many people understand that the trump foundation is often used to purchase trump celebrtiy memoriabilia instead of doing charitable work? THe media is ABSOLUTELY failing to cover the ways that trump is worse in the same categories of behavior that it is hammering hillary. Even the whole “Deplorables,” thing. You can put together hour long clips of trump just calling groups of people names. THese aren’t even two remotely similar candidates in terms of errors that they make. One is FAR worse than the other. And, it turns out, the one that is worse on things like charitable foundations is ALSO a fucking nazi, which the media won’t cover because then its about policy, and not about a horse race.
COngrats, america. We’ve failed. We’re done. THis election outcome is only about whether we slowly collapse under our own idiocies, or get annhilated like germany did, and hope that our conquerors are moral enough to let us come back like we did 70 years ago.
Personally, I’d rather NOT go the disastrous route. At this point in the campaign, everyone who is talking about maybe not voting for HRC is a nazi enabler, and I have no desire to play nice with that. OUr electoral system means we get one, or the other. You can either work against true evil, or you can be a supporter of true evil. There’s no middle ground in what the possible outcomes are. All the protest votes, public condemnations of hillary, public reluctant deciding, only makes it more likely that we elect a fucking nazi in november. If ONE person doesn’t vote for HRC because you are knocking her while not point out the myriad ways in which trump is worse on exactly the same category of thing, you are helping promote evil. Sorry, but that’s the way the game works.
Public ambivalence about hillary, right now, is probably the WORST thing that people who care about our democracy, our freedoms, and the lives of millions of people, can do to our country.
This is about as small- and narrow-minded a post as you’ll find on the internet and that’s saying something. I can completely respect a decision to vote for HRC, but to use venom and hyperbole to try and shame any other action besides casting a vote for HRC as enabling evil/Nazism/etc. is just beyond the pale. It’s just hateful, spiteful, and, at its core, undemocratic.
On the Gawker/Univision front, two of the articles have been republished under the guise of reporting on the court case. I understand Univision’s reasoning in terms of liabilities, and to their credit, the new article about Mitch Williams, which quotes two of the deleted articles in full, is still standing, almost a week later.
“(Gary Johnson hasn’t deigned to reply.)”
Why is it you assume Johnson thinks it “beneath him” to answer these questions? Giving the benefit of the doubt, he may have just not gotten around to it yet or there is some other legitimate excuse. You’re injecting an opinion with no factual basis. It makes it difficult to take the rest of the point seriously….a simple primer that “he hasn’t responded so far” would suffice.
I don’t quite understand Keith’s obvious political dislike of Johnson. He’s certainly a flawed candidate, but not at all in the same way Clinton and Trump are.
I don’t understand Keith’s (obvious) dislike of Johnson. I don’t want to unfairly describe Keith’s political beliefs, but he presents himself as very liberal socially and at least somewhat in favor of a free market with limited government intrusion. Johnson and Weld are pro-choice (Weld probably couldn’t run for POTUS because of it), pro-immigrant, pro-LGBTQ, pro-environment (they would maintain the EPA and recognize climate change as man made), and are willing to say “Black Lives Matter.” They actually want to make cuts to the federal budget–there’s a certain level of pandering whenever a politician avoids that discussion, and both Clinton and Trump will make the problem worse. Keith lives in a state where he could very safely vote for a third party. And he won’t. Because of vaccines? A position Johnson has reversed and isn’t even a federal issue. Aleppo? Johnson had a brain cramp; Clinton actually contributed to the crisis.
I get that Johnson is a flawed candidate. But he’s flawed because he’s too honest and simply not a great public speaker. Clinton is a liar and Trump is a racist. Clinton has tons of experience, but what can anyone really point to as an issue she was out in front of? She was a terrible SoS. She voted for the war in Iraq. She was against gay marriage until the public told her not to be. Her views change with the wind. The only certainties are that the deficit will continue to balloon and she will appoint judges who read the Constitution however they want.
This election isn’t just Clinton vs. Trump. Consider Johnson and Weld, who both have records they actually can be proud of.
From Johnson & Weld’s own site:
If you say climate change is “a political agenda,” then I have no use for you. We can certainly debate the economic impact of various policies designed to slow climate change and ocean acidification, but that’s not what they’re doing.
Ugh. I have two intro paragraphs. Sorry about that! Haha. Not sure how to delete or edit.
Well said, Michael. I share your assessment of Johnson, his positions, his flaws, how he stacks up against the rest of the field almost 100%.
And I share your confusion over Keith and his political leanings. His general statements on the issues seem to put him more in the Libertarian camp than others, but when push comes to shove he seems to have no trouble punching the D ticket.
Anyway, thanks for sharing .
Not sure they are saying climate change itself is a political agenda, but rather they are criticizing the federal government’s investments in green companies (which have been disastrous according to everything I’ve read) and the efficacy of any legislation. There’s a difference there.
Politicians play to the crowd all the time and I think it’s more than fair to question their motives in investing in green companies.
rather they are criticizing the federal government’s investments in green companies (which have been disastrous according to everything I’ve read) and the efficacy of any legislation
No, that’s not what they’re saying. If they were, I’d have a different reaction. And when you have substantial groups of scientists calling for greater government action to slow man’s effect on the climate and our oceans, dismissing it as a “political agenda” says to me, someone deeply concerned about things like the future of our food supply, that you’re not serious about the issue.
As for the derisive tone you took towards me in your next comment here, please refrain from that sort of phrasing. You certainly don’t have enough information on my views to make such a broad statement.
I guess it’s just interesting what people prioritize when they vote for someone. Keith has no use for a person who questions whether the Democrats’ embrace of climate change is part of a political agenda, but does have use for a person who denigrated her husband’s accusers; was involved in military interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria that have made the world more dangerous; will contribute to a budget crisis that will leave me and millions of Americans without Social Security in all probability, including my children and Keith’s daughter; lies constantly; and is apparently too careless or technolgically illiterate to handle an email server properly. Johnson has given no indication he’s anti-science and given the government’s foray into fixing climate change so far, I’d say he’s justifiably skeptical of its ability to help the problem.
Hello?
I’ve tried to make this post/point twice already and for some reason this one keeps getting thrown out but the others have no trouble getting through .
You’re right that Kaepernick has started a conversation, but what you and he and many others in the sports industry/media complex may not realize is where that conversation is headed. We can certainly talk about how the issues he’s trying to bring attention to are more important than sports, but ultimately many people are and will get fed up having political and social commentary thrust in their face every time they try and watch a game. Based on a pretty wide network of people I engage with, the disgust with having to see an athlete, coach, sports media member, etc. use their venue as a platform to unload their agenda on everyone is getting tiresome. Backlash is coming at some point. End of story.
Spam filtered. I don’t know why.
Translation: Black athletes should know their place, and shouldn’t be so uppity, or else white folks’ feelings might get hurt.
“Black athletes should know their place, and shouldn’t be so uppity, or else white folks’ feelings might get hurt.”
No, that’s not what I said. Not even close to what I insinuated either.
So tell me something. Let’s assume for a second you’re a big fan of Antiques Roadshow, but at some point and increasingly so as time proceeds, they start featuring Sean Hannity as part of their program and he gets plenty of air time in amongst the what used to be the “normal” programming to blather on aimlessly about “God,” “free markets,” “having a strong military,” etc. How much of that do you think you could stomach and for how long?
And what is it with some people who have to go right into the gutter and make it a racial issue and start slinging mud around that? That had nothing to do with my comment, which was strictly about how politics, political commentary, etc. have gone from gently filtering through the sports lens to an overwhelming presence. All I was pointing out is that the vast majority of people have an expectation that when they engage in the sports arena, they will not receive a significant amount of exposure to that other stuff. We have that expectation in numerous other facets of our life. You go to Disney and there’s an expectation that a bunch of doomsday evangelicals won’t be there passing out pamphlets and harassing you while you’re in line for a ride, correct? That’s all I’m saying here and that the line is very close to being “crossed” for many. This has nothing to do with “uppity white folks” and their “feelings” or making sure black athletes “know their place.” It’s about keeping sports overwhelmingly sports, Disney overwhelmingly Disney, and politics overwhelmingly politics.
Hm. You seem to be under the impression that politics and sports remained entirely separate until one month ago, when Colin Kaepernick dared violate the sacred boundary between the two. This is hardly the case. And, in line with your Hannity example, I do get a fair dose of right-wing rhetoric whenever I go to a baseball game. The national anthem (which is highly jingoistic), often “God Bless America,” occasional military-themed displays, etc.
So, when people say, “I don’t like it when sports and politics get mixed together,” what they REALLY mean is, “I don’t like it when sports and political messaging I don’t agree with get mixed together.” As with Tony LaRussa, I find that 99.9% of people who are critical of Kaepernick are angry about WHAT he said, not that he chose to say something political. If he had said, “I love this country so much, I’ve decided to drape myself in an American flag during the anthem,” he would be getting praised by those same people.
Also, I don’t know what you meant by threatening “a backlash,” but perhaps you should know that warnings of an imminent backlash are a cornerstone of white supremacist rhetoric.
I get not seeing the need to play the anthem before sporting events, but now its classified as a ‘right-wing’ song?
“Hm. You seem to be under the impression that politics and sports remained entirely separate until one month ago”
No, I was not under the impression that the two were entirely separate. it’s just grown in orders of magnitude lately to the point where the underlying event itself is getting drowned out.
“Also, I don’t know what you meant by threatening “a backlash,” but perhaps you should know that warnings of an imminent backlash are a cornerstone of white supremacist rhetoric”
Wow, just wow. It was simply a reference to cord-cutting, tuning out, etc. and saying that if people feel like what they’re getting (politics) isn’t what they’re paying for (sports entertainment), they’ll start withholding their dollars. But you turn that into an opportunity to make some deep and dark insinuations about me, which is sad as you don’t have the slightest clue as to my racial/ethnic lineage.
Given that and the rest of your pathetic drivel – as Joe pointed out regarding your commentary on the anthem – you really are just a waste of my time.
“The national anthem (which is highly jingoistic”
One last comment on this because you seem to struggle with basic definitions. Why should it come as any surprise that the USA’s or any country’s national anthem might come across as “jingoistic”?
You throw that around like it’s inherently a bad thing. First off, note the definition of jingoism:
extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy
Okay, so a country wants to have a song somehow represent its NATIONAL status and interests. It is a song about that country, expressing pride or whatever, and nowhere else. Why would it be that surprising that a song reflecting “extreme patriotism” would be chosen? To the second point, whether we like it or not, war/the military/aggression has played a major role in shaping the boundaries of most sovereign nations that are recognized as such. It’s an almost inescapable part of our DNA, again, for better or worse. So a song is written demonstrating extreme pride and patriotism and references the fight/struggle/aggression behind its status as a sovereign, independent state should hardly come as a surprise. I don’t know all the anthems of all the countries of the world, but I’d be willing to bet a fair many have very similar elements to our own, or at the very least carry the underlying them of inward pride/patriotism to the extreme.
I agree that seeing someone’s agenda pushed during what is a sporting event distorts what should be an entertaining distraction, but playing the national anthem is pushing someone’s agenda. Playing God Bless America during the seventh-inning stretch is pushing someone’s agenda. Trotting veterans out at every opportunity before, during and after a sporting event is pushing someone’s agenda.
Why the need to do this at those events? When you go to see a movie, they don’t have everyone stand for the anthem before the movie starts. When you go to see a concert, there’s no time during an encore break to sing God Bless America. (At least not at any concert I’ve attended.) So why do it at sporting events? Because it pushes someone’s agenda.
“Because it pushes someone’s agenda.”
I think it’s good to question many of the things you mention and why we do them, but I feel it’s an overly simplistic explanation to say it’s only done because it “pushes someone’s agenda.”
I’d have to research and understand much more of the history behind the how and why the anthem and certain songs (I know that GBA can largely be traced as a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks) came to be such an ingrained part of the program/culture.
But based on what I interpret from your comments, if it’s perceived that the national anthem and other similar “patriotic” displays are nothing more than an agenda and it best to disconnect them from underlying events to avoid being jingoistic and/or politicizing everything, then the question becomes, when are they every appropriate? At a July 4th celebration maybe? But even then you could say having to put up with that ol’ “right-wing” anthem is just someone pushing their agenda and undermining people’s ability to enjoy fireworks and ice cream.
I agree all these patriotic displays are maybe a little overdone and should probably be dialed back a bit to more appropriate levels – whatever that may be – but some of the criticisms against almost seem to suggest that not only are most of the current displays done way too often but that almost any display, no matter how infrequent or gentle/subtle in how it was carried out, would be too much and/or inappropriate.
I would say that if you show up to a Fourth of July celebration and then complain because the anthem is played and the flag is waved, that you probably shouldn’t be there in the first place. I’d say the the same thing about complaining about having too many veterans around on Veteran’s Day or having ceremonies with flags and the anthem on Memorial Day. The flag, the anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance are certainly appropriate in those settings.
By the way, I don’t believe the anthem or the flag are “right-wing.” I fly the flag from my home and I remove my hat when the anthem is played. Again, my objection is that some people or organizations use those things to push their agendas or to send messages at sporting events. Therefore, I have no issues with athletes or anyone else who wish to send another message during those times.
My favorite part of the Scientific American interview was Trump’s answer on the opioid epidemic: “We first should stop the inflow of opioids into the United States.” Their prepared response about one of the biggest public health challenges in the country doesn’t even understand that the opioid problem involves the diversion and abuse of otherwise legal prescription drugs. These answers all read like the topic paragraph of reports written the night before they were due by buzzed college students.
I think you’re slightly too kind to Stein here, fwiw. There are certainly good ideas and meaningful analysis in some of her answers, but there are also terrible ideas about GMOs, nuclear power, etc.
That’s about right, on Stein. But at least here there’s some reasoning, albeit faulty. Her tweets on science have merely pandered to the ignorant, the denialists, and the conspiracy-theorists in the audience.
I miss those halcyon days of Homestar Runner, eagerly awaiting the new SBEmail update every Monday. Good times. Good times.
And I still listen to Strong Bad Sings quite often.
Aww man, I used to love SBEmail Monday’s, especially Strong Bad’s take on techno with “The System is Down” and of course cool band names.
Nothing like waking up in the morning to find a comment trashing me posted on my own blog. I’ve deleted it, and again remind everyone to please refrain from personal attacks, and that I’ll remove any post that I think violates that one rule. Thank you.
It’s times like these when we need a little more Homestar Runner.
+1
I assume you’re referencing what I wrote because the one I have in mind is no longer visible.
It’s wholly inaccurate to say that I was “trashing” you in that post, nor was it anything close to what could be considered a “personal attack.”
All I did was point out that while you seem to have an opinion on a very wide range of topics, many of which have some political angle, about the only two you seem to be any significant weight on when it comes to considering who to vote for is the person’s stance on climate change and vaccinations. That’s not an attack; it’s pointing out something that you yourself have all but admitted.
Don’t make me the bad guy here.
How many people have to find your posts to be offputting and/or offensive before you start to consider that, just maybe, your tone is a problem?
In just the last 24 hours, you’ve called one user “hateful,” you’ve slammed me six ways to Sunday (including calling my writing “pathetic drivel”), and you’ve attacked Keith to the point that he had to delete a post. And, of course, this is the third consecutive weekend of you dominating the comments section with your very aggressive posts. I’m wondering what it will take before you dial it back. Or, frankly, what it will take before you get banned.
I’m not going to bother to respond to any specifics of what you wrote, because what’s the point? Your opinions, or whatever they are, are a constantly moving target. Like, for example, where you write that I have no idea what jingoism means, then you write that of course the national anthem is jingoistic. I mean, which is it? I can’t figure it out.
Similar situation to the Baltimore County rape investigations (well…lack thereof, more realistically) in Kansas City, MO’s child crimes unit. Excellent reporting by KC Star as well. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article101962597.html
“How many people have to find your posts to be offputting and/or offensive before you start to consider that, just maybe, your tone is a problem?”
Thanks for your argumentum ad populum….duly noted, considered, and dismissed. I consider you to be the most offputting person commenting here. I’d like to think my opinion is equally valid, even if I don’t have multiple “buddies” chiming in to vocalize support. In another venue – one where your snide tone and ridiculous points wouldn’t receive so much cover – I’m confident that I’d have the support of other voices, not you. But I intend to let my arguments stand or fail on their own merit, not whether or not I can get 3-4 others to “share” an opinion.
“In just the last 24 hours, you’ve called one user “hateful,””
The content presented quite frankly came across as hateful, so I called a spade a spade.
” you’ve slammed me six ways to Sunday (including calling my writing “pathetic drivel”)”
I really can’t think of a better way to describe the post from above given your comments about the anthem. I wasn’t alone in the observation.
“and you’ve attacked Keith to the point that he had to delete a post.”
Again, there’s a struggle here for you and possibly others to understand what an “attack” is.
“I’m not going to bother to respond to any specifics of what you wrote, because what’s the point?”
This tells me you’re likely incapable of doing so with anything of substance. Which means I’d welcome you just staying on the sidelines.
“Like, for example, where you write that I have no idea what jingoism means, then you write that of course the national anthem is jingoistic. I mean, which is it? I can’t figure it out.”
That’s a matter of your poor interpretation. You tossed out the statement about the anthem being jingoistic as if there was something of value to note there, presumably (and maybe I’m wrong in the presumption) that that’s a bad thing. My response was simply to cover either possible scenario. Either a) you don’t understand what jingoism means so insinuating it’s something wrong/bad when it’s something you’d expect from a national anthem is a bit misplaced, or b) you do understand, but pointing it out absolutely provides zero value to the discussion because it’s basic, common knowledge. It’s as if you were reminding us that the sky is blue or the sun is hot. By extension of that, national anthems are inherently jingoistic. So what was the point in bringing it up, if not to insinuate it was a bad thing or maybe something uniquely bad/wrong with the USA’s anthem?
Again, there’s a struggle here for you and possibly others to understand what an “attack” is.
Just to be clear, the only definition of what an “attack” is that matters on this blog is mine. And you attacked me in the post I deleted. You rephrased the argument to make it impersonal, which is why I didn’t delete your new comment – and makes it clear that you know very well what you did.
Either tone it down – the way you wrote and interacted earlier this year – and become a productive part of the conversations we have here, or refrain from commenting. The comment threads have taken a turn for the worse the last few weeks and I’m not going to let that continue.
It’s awesome that you accuse me of “argumentum ad populum,” and then just moments later assert that your observation is more valid because you weren’t the only one who offered it. So, again, which is it? Do other posters’ opinions matter, or don’t they?
In any event, this is why there is no point in responding to you. The goalposts are always moving. It’s also the case that, for someone who consistently demeans others’ reading comprehension, your own is nothing to write home about.
Anyhow, since I don’t want to be an accessory to the poisoning of Keith’s blog any more than I already have been, this shall be my final response to you. Excoriate me as you see fit, and congratulations on getting the last word.
“It’s awesome that you accuse me of “argumentum ad populum,” and then just moments later assert that your observation is more valid because you weren’t the only one who offered it. So, again, which is it? Do other posters’ opinions matter, or don’t they?”
The difference lies in the reason for invoking others’ opinion. It’s not wrong to mention that others share your opinion, but when you use that as the sole/primary basis for trying to insinuate someone’s ideas are faulty and/or wrong-headed, well, that’s a fallacious line of reasoning. You clearly brought up others’ opinions of me and my writing style to denounce me on that point alone….”How many people have to find your posts to be offputting and/or offensive before you start to consider that, just maybe, your tone is a problem?”….all I did was state that someone else clearly thought your comment about the national anthem seemed a bit obtuse.
But whatever. It’d probably help clean things up around here if you and I’d just give each other a very wide berth.
” Two women at the University of Richmond did the same, one revealing that a school administrator said the rapist had a right to “finish.””
So, when I read this, I assumed the “right to finish” meant the right to finish school (i.e., graduate). Which is no right and no justification for ignoring sexual assault.
Then I read the article. Now I’m nauseous.
“Either tone it down – the way you wrote and interacted earlier this year – and become a productive part of the conversations we have here, or refrain from commenting. The comment threads have taken a turn for the worse the last few weeks and I’m not going to let that continue.”
Look, your the host and I respect that and the fact you’ve provided this venue for people to come on here and share, and I can admit I’ve been more caustic a few times lately than is typical for me, but I think it only fair to say that this is at least in part the result of some of the other posters here – namely CB – not exactly putting forth a glowing disposition either. I’m not saying you are necessarily, but I feel almost like I’m getting singled out here as the problem when I hardly feel like I should shoulder all the blame for the more problematic tone. I say things that get labelled as “obnoxious,” “offputting,” “an attack,” “insulting,” etc. when they’re very clearly in line with what some of the other posters here are saying. It’s just that my angle, and presumably worldview, is maybe just a little bit different. It gives the impression that you give a little more latitude to caustic remarks if you’re more inclined to agree with the substance of the post. It’s your blog and you run it how you see fit, but I’d appreciate if the “rules” cut all ways fairly. A snarky/condescending/spiteful tone is the same regardless of who it’s coming from or the idea being shared. I’m not terribly amused seeing a post or two of mine come under some pretty intense scrutiny for “crossing a line” and see nary a word about some others that really have no business on here either based on what you seem to suggest are the “rules of play.”
LOL trying to paint yourself as a victim here. Don’t act like a dick to Keith and don’t take away more from the conversation than you add to it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
“Don’t act like a dick to Keith and don’t take away more from the conversation than you add to it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?”
See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Completely unnecessary.
I’m just “calling a spade a spade” sweetheart 😉
I’m as close to a First Amendment absolutist as there is (short of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater), but am I the only one tired of seeing Mark dominate this blog? OK, I get the fact that he’s an angry guy and loves to get into digital warfare on Keith’s blog. It’s more than a bit tiring, you know?
And while I enjoy getting my voice out there and engaging with people – whether it be those in general agreement with my own views or in spirited debate with those holding dissenting opinions – at my core is someone who respects private property and holds a democratic view of things.
On the first point (private property), this is Keith’s blog and he can manage the dialogue however best he sees fit, even if I think it’s somewhat unfairly applied (and I can lay out clear examples to support my thesis here). On the second point (having a democratic view), it’s clear that the overwhelming majority of participants would prefer to keep this more of an echo chamber among like-minded individuals than have someone come in and challenge them with different points of view.
No problem then. I’ll take the “hint” and slack off. There’s no sense in attempting a deep level of engagement with a group that is either unable or unwilling to respond in good faith to your points and makes clear nearly everything you offer is unwelcome.
“OK, I get the fact that he’s an angry guy…”
See, how does this not constitute an attack/insult. It was not in direct response to anything I said and contributed zero productive to the conversation but was only meant to cast me as someone with “issues.”
If you were to know me personally, you would know within 10 seconds that anger is about the least of my problems.
“It’s more than a bit tiring, you know?”
To have a group of people seem more concerned about making snide remarks and letting you know you’re unwelcome than address the substance of your points while patting each other on the back? Yeah, that does get a bit tiresome.
Most of us agree with you, Mike P. He’s either willfully ignorant of his own hypocrisy and lacks the awareness to understand how he takes more off the table than he brings or just trolling on purpose at this point.
“Most of us agree with you, Mike P”
As a friendly gesture, I’d like to buy all of you a pair of shoulder pads. I’m doing this as a courtesy with respect to your health. I mean, each of you keeps falling over him or herself to pat each other on the back for taking a swipe at me, and at some point all that back-patting will naturally lead to some kind of tissue damage if the proper precautions aren’t taken.
For what it’s worth (which, to be fair, is very little), here’s my take (and then I’ll bugger off back to the corners of the interwebs where I belong):
I think the comments on Keith’s blog are generally extremely interesting, and a representative sample shows a lot of differing voices *respectfully* debating viewpoints in tension. This blog has always been an example of what good commenters can bring to the table.
I will readily admit that I’m one of the people who finds Mark’s commenting increasingly offputting. I’m not sure precisely why this is, but I think it comes down to two things. First, Mark, you seem to be compelled to respond to every single comment, often with multiple replies, even when there doesn’t appear to be much more to add. As a result, the comments often feel like they get bogged down, rehashing ground that has already been covered.
The second thing I’ve noticed is that you seem to believe that the people who disagree with you are arguing in bad faith. That there is a concerted effort to gang up on you and make you feel unwelcome. I would say this is both inaccurate and unfair. I think the vast majority of the commenters here would be happy to have your viewpoints articulated, so long as they contribute to a productive conversation. Too many of the threads over the last couple of weeks have swerved wildly off-topic. I think as the frustration has grown, so too has the impulse to single you out. I realize that you feel like you’re being persecuted, and that is unfortunate, because I don’t think that’s anyone’s intention. But at some point, when a bunch of internet strangers with no connection to one another outside of a website seem to be collectively aligning against an individual, perhaps the points they are making shouldn’t be viewed as bad faith group think, and taken as honest critiques.
But again, please feel free to take that for what it’s worth, as I’ll readily admit to being a pretty huge goofball both online and off.
Holy Jesus. I wandered back over here to get the SA link for my own blog, and there were like 30 more comments in the last 24 hours. Anyhow, I don’t feel so bad commenting, since I don’t feel I’m singlehandedly keeping this going, any more.
I think there are two frustrating things here, Mark. The first is that you’re not really discussing, you’re advocating. Like a politician, particularly certain combover-wearing Republicans who are running for president right now, you’re NEVER wrong. If someone suggests your position on an issue is inconsistent, or unclear, or doesn’t stand up to Socratic-style scrutiny, you insist you’re 100% right, and turn it around on them. Often with some snarky remark about their intelligence, or the “echo chamber,” or whatever.
The second is your, for lack of a better term, passive aggression (a term I’ve used before). You clearly know where the line between ok and not ok is, because sometimes you pointedly don’t cross it. For example, when you rewrote the deleted comment about Keith. But on those occasions when you do cross it, you don’t own it, and instead you pull the whole “who, me?” bit. Whatever my faults may be, I have at least acknowledged–on occasion–a need to dial it back. I’m also happy to acknowledge those occasions when I’ve moved beyond discussion to personal criticisms, like when I have criticized your writing. Or when I said Aaron B. was a snob.
This leads me to a more specific observation, about your most recent flurry of comments. I get that the “echo chamber” bit is about the only way you can turn this back on the rest of us, given that there are now so many complaints and criticisms about you being lodged. But, as with other assertions you have made, it simply doesn’t square with the evidence. Aaron B. and I have butted heads angrily enough that Keith had to step in (see “Stick to Baseball” about four weeks ago). Similarly, Keith and I have also, for lack of a better word, dueled. Search the blog for the week(s) that the Oregon judge who declined to punish an upskirt photographer. I disagree with both of them on a lot of things. Which means I most certainly do not reflexively agree with whatever they say.
Anyhow, I don’t have a lot of places where I can debate with well-informed people. With most of my colleagues, it’s wisest to play things close to the vest. And on my own blog, my co-author and I can’t allow comments, because we just don’t have time to police them. So, I look forward to the day, hopefully next Saturday, when we all move on from this sniping.
You beat me to the inherent bullshittiness of the “echo chamber” comment. It’s just false. No one here is discouraging contrary viewpoints. We’re discouraging uncivil behavior.
To wit: Mark, your first comment this week was to play a stupid semantic game over a single word in this post, with I don’t even know how many links on a variety of topics. That’s not constructive. That’s someone looking for a reason to criticize me and then picking the first thing he can find. I didn’t respond because it was – and remains – a waste of my time. That is not the kind of discussion I wish to have here.
But echo chamber this is not. We disagree here often, and yet we still get along. If one good thing has come of Mark’s comments the last few weeks, it’s that I’ve seen so many familiar names chime back in and hope we can restore the previous state of the comment threads. I hope so too.
“But echo chamber this is not. We disagree here often…”
I’m not going to beat this point up but will respond by saying that just because there are disagreements doesn’t necessarily count as evidence against it being an “echo chamber.” What matters is the core content and ideals being discussed and how those are covered and shared within the group, not necessarily the any number of issues that may have secondary importance.
Here’s an example to illustrate my line of thinking here. Let’s say you over to Free Republic and jump in on a thread about climate change. Any opinion you share on the matter that runs even remotely contrary to “climate change is a hoax” is shouted down, mocked, etc. Now, some poster there – we’ll call him Jim – may be posting additional color on the subject and remark how he believes the EPA is part of a global conspiracy to allow the UN to guide environmental policy in the US. Another poster – we’ll say his name is Bob – is more of the mindset that the EPA is simply an example of government overreach and incompetence. Both Jim and Bob argue furiously over this point, and they would maybe contend that because they disagree vehemently but coexist on FR that the site isn’t necessarily an “echo chamber.” But standing back and taking a broader view reveals that they are pretty much hostile to any view contrary to “climate change is a hoax” and drown out any presentation of facts that may contradict their position. Would you really consider FR not an echo chamber just because two guys disagree on just how incompetent or evil the EPA is?
I’m not saying I’ve seen or experienced anything quite as bad here as what I described (that was purely illustrative), but to put forth the notion that just because there are disagreements as being proof that it’s not an echo chamber certainly doesn’t tell the whole story. You and 10 other people here can all have separate opinions on who’s the best glam metal band or maybe even on something a little more serious as to how exactly a rape case should have been prosecuted, but if you’re pretty consistently falling in line with one another on some major areas and are all-to-willing to pounce on somebody holding a differing viewpoint, well, forgive me for not “seeing the light.”
I promised myself last week I wouldn’t get more involved in this debate, but it’s gotten really frustrating. I’m not going to rehash what Keith, CB, and others have said as I agree with them, but I’ll add some other thoughts that have made it frustrating for me. Either last week or the previous week, someone said that your posts were too long and you said you’d try to change to make your points more concise, but I see scant evidence that is occurring. For long posts in the comments section on the internet, it really either needs to be entertaining or informative for it to be read. They are meant to be informal. So when people see long posts, most are going to read the first few sentences and decide if they want to continue reading. But a couple of long posts doesn’t account for all the frustration. It is also the volume of long posts.
But the other point I want to make is something CB touched in an earlier post; the seemingly constant need to get the last word in. That is always frustrating.
Wow. Hey Mark, it’s not often that people threaten violence in a blog. I’m quite impressed by the digital equivalent of your beer muscles. I’m sure you’re quite the tough guy in person. Take a deep breath and enjoy your life.
A thanks to Ryan V. for a relatively even-keeled assessment and somewhat fair assessment, even if I don’t necessarily agree with all the conclusions. As a quick rebuttal to what I’m getting at, you say this:
” I realize that you feel like you’re being persecuted, and that is unfortunate, because I don’t think that’s anyone’s intention. But at some point…the points they are making shouldn’t be viewed as bad faith group think, and taken as honest critiques.”
To which I respond by highlighting Mike P.’s comment that followed:
“Wow. Hey Mark, it’s not often that people threaten violence in a blog. I’m quite impressed by the digital equivalent of your beer muscles.”
Where in the bloody Hades did I do anything that even resembled anything close to “threatening violence”? Please, point out the specific comment and state your case to let (hopefully) reasonable people respond. So by extension, after receiving such ridiculous remark in reponse to my comments that has no basis in fact (again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING I said that could be remotely construed as a “threat” or suggestion of “violence”), how am I supposed to come away thinking there’s been an “honest critique” of my statements and that the remarks weren’t made in “bad faith”?
A candidate’s stance on warming and vaccines goes beyond two issues, although the former is arguably the biggest threat to civilization since the U.S. and Russia stood down somewhat from the nuclear precipice. Disproven arguments against taking action on warming (which the Grand Obstructionist Party won’t even let the military prepare for despite its wishes; better the Navy sinks into the Atlantic than they give the Tea Party reason to mount a primary challenge) and to maximize vaccination rates are bad enough, but denial of science and reality is a massive character flaw on its own. Johnson and Stein are either pandering to nuts or they are denying reality. Neither is an argument in their favor. As with Trump, a person who can convince himself that obvious, proven untruths are true should not be handed power. Hillary is possibly the second-worst major-party presidential candidate in any of our lifetimes. That does not make her as dangerous as Trump.
For both good and bad, I really don’t think Johnson panders. I disagree with you and obviously Keith on that. He’s refreshingly honest–sometimes to his detriment.
He has reversed his opinion on mandatory vaccinations. He never really elaborated on his original position, so it’s unfair to say whether he thought they should be voluntary altogether or whether that issue should just be handled at the state level. He discussed it so infrequently that I think it was a stretch to call it pandering in the first place. I’ve heard his core stump speech over and over dating back to 2012 and vaccines were never mentioned.
As for for climate change, do you really trust the government to make a positive impact? Is there any evidence of that? They have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on failed green companies. Scientists may be calling for more government involvement, but are they considering the effect more regulations may have on the economy, at least in the short term? I’m guessing not. Obviously, any policy on climate change has to take into account potential harm to the economy. I think Johnson is justifiably skeptical about whether the government can positively affect climate change and that is the point I believe he is making. I disagree with Keith’s assessment of a “political agenda.”
Honest question: are Trump and Clinton pandering when they both are unwilling to discuss any substantive budget cuts?
That Hannity comparison is incredibly off. Kaepernick is kneeling before the game even starts. That’s it. A more apt comparison would be if Hannity held up a sign during the opening of antiques roadshow. And if people here complained about that I would find it hilarious. It’s amusing that you’re complaint on the “stick to baseball” post essentially amounts to “stick to football.” If your need for a pure, innocent football game is so strong that you feel the need to silence a silent form of political speech made by a man who clearly believes in what he is saying, then I’m going to suggest your priorities are a bit out of whack.
When and how should Kaepernick protest? When is discussing racial injustice not inconvenient for people? maybe someone can create a list of events that are acceptable to briefly interrupt to make a point about racial injustice? Is Rapinoe’s protest before US women’s national team games ok? Or is that taking away your viewing pleasure, too?
From MLK:
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
“…then I’m going to suggest your priorities are a bit out of whack.”
You don’t get to judge should and shouldn’t be my priorities, especially as it pertains to how I decide to consume sports entertainment and political speech.
I take time out of my schedule and sometimes money out of my pocket to consume both in a manner that maximizes MY utility. If I deem the way it’s being presented as a waste of my time and/or money, I’ll direct that time/money to things I feel are more worthy. You can decry that all you want and try and paint it in a manner that reflects poorly on me all you want, but the bottom line is it’s an expression of a freedom of choice (with regard to association and how to interact with society and the world around me) that unequivocally does not impact the rights of others and is a fundamental aspect at the core of our basic rights as human beings.
I’m respecting Kaepernick’s right to choose to engage in a form of protest at his workplace that is part of a publicly televised broadcast.
I’m respecting the media’s right to choose cover it however they best see fit by critiquing/praising/staying neutral/etc. and either showcasing/ignoring/etc. it. or whatever.
So now that they’ve exercise their rights, which I’m respecting, all I ask is the freedom to choose how to best spend my time and dollars in response to it.
I think it’s a fair proposition on all fronts and all expressions are equally valid. There’s no way in hell on a sane planet and among sane people that supposedly respects basic human rights should I be considered the bad guy for tuning out because the content no longer resembles what I believed I was dedicating my time/resources towards.
“When and how should Kaepernick protest? When is discussing racial injustice not inconvenient for people? maybe someone can create a list of events that are acceptable to briefly interrupt to make a point about racial injustice?”
It’s going to seem like gloating, so I almost hate doing this, but to fend off any notion that I’m part of the “wait until the right time” crowd and shove that possible attack aside, I will say that I’ve spent a relatively big chunk of each of my past two weekends not watching football but working with friends and family to personally see to it that a near-destitute black family here in the area is receiving the attention it desperately needs after running into a series of incredibly unfortunate events. For me, there’s no “discussing racial injustice.” I prefer to take personal action to try and correct it. I’m the last person you can preach at about staying in a “comfort zone” on something like this because it’s too “inconvenient” for me. I have and will continue to get my hands dirty. So I feel like I’ve earned the right to say, I’m addressing racial injustice the best way I can through action, but I also prefer the “discussion” being had that’s growing and permeating the sports scene not overwhelm the experience or I’ll simply choose to tune out. Fair enough?
Actually I do get to judge. You may think I’m being unfair (and maybe you’re right) or think I’m a jerk (you wouldn’t be right) but I certainly am free to judge someone who finds a Kaepernick’s protest a hinderance to his/her enjoyment of a stupid football game. The whole point of Kaepernick choosing the venue he did was to gain attention to his cause. You’re annoyed he didn’t choose something that was less effective or that was effective but in a different venue.
And yes, you have the right to spend your time and money elsewhere. But it’s frankly laughable that you’re annoyed at your personal choice being criticized when you decided to disclose that personal choice in a public manner.
Good for you for helping out that family, Mark. I’m not sure that I agree you’ve earned the right to simply tune out what Kaepernick or other athletes have to say or that it some how entitles you to watch a football game without being reminded of racial injustice. You’ve chosen to address racial injustice in the way you think is best. I’m guessing Kaepernick thinks he doing the same thing. For what it’s worth I would disagree with Kaepernick if he were to criticize you, just as I’m disagreeing with you.
My fundamental problem with much of the Kaepernick controversy is that the debate has focused on how he has chosen to protest rather than the issue he is protesting. The Tulsa police apparently shot an unarmed black man recently and the video was just released. While far from conclusive, the shooting does not look warranted. Let’s talk about why that happened and what we can do to prevent that from happening again rather than criticize Kaepernick for inconveniencing our Sunday plans.
“You may think I’m being unfair (and maybe you’re right) or think I’m a jerk (you wouldn’t be right) but I certainly am free to judge someone who finds a Kaepernick’s protest a hinderance to his/her enjoyment of a stupid football game. ”
The only thing “unfair” is the characterization of my position simply being a reaction to CK’s actions relative to how a “stupid football game” is being presented. It speaks to the broader circus it’s becoming and how political speech is infiltrating and permeating nearly every corner of sports commentary. If it was just about one man making a stand/statement but didn’t overwhelm what (sports entertainment) is advertised as being presented, I’d be fine with it. But it’s getting to the point that what I’m consuming is NOT what is portrayed as the showcase event, in my humble opinion anyway. I don’t go to what I’m told is a steakhouse with a supposedly quiet atmosphere and appreciate it when the food is better suited for McDonald’s and there’ some fat trucker in a wife-beater talking loudly about his foot fungus. You can call me names or whatever – “uncomfortable,” “annoyed,” etc. – as a result of that, but the bottom line is I feel like I’m not getting what’s advertised and am deciding it may be time to look somewhere else.
“Let’s talk about why that happened and what we can do to prevent that from happening again rather than criticize Kaepernick for inconveniencing our Sunday plans.”
I’m fine with having a conversation, but again, freedom of choice/association. You seem a bit dismissive of the idea of “inconveniencing Sunday plans,” but again it comes down to what I and others choose to do and how we spend our time. People can’t be forced to ponder these issues on others’ terms. If they choose not to ponder them at all, well, that’s just how it goes. But to suggest people should just consume what’s being forced on them or be condemned for tuning out smacks of a little bit of authoritarianism.
Go Mark! Answer everybody about everything!
+1
Sorry Keith. This is Mark’s blog now.
+1; +1
int sansho1_approval, Mat_G_approval;
sansho1_approval++;
Mat_G_approval++;
I watched some of the Lions game against the Titans and the sports broadcast was never infiltrated by a political discussion. The week before I listened to the game on the radio and never heard any political discussion. My experience seems to differ from yours . While I know such anecdotal data has limitations, I do wonder how much of an actual game broadcast is taken up with political discussion?
Anyway, I’m fine with being dismissive of your desire to be free from an important political and social discussion because you’d rather watch your football game without it. Again, you’re free to speak with your dollars and eyeballs. The only person I’m “condemning” is you; an individual who came to this blog and expressed “disgust” over Kaepernick using his platform to promote social justice. And it’s hilarious that you bring up authoritarianism in a discussion that involves a person who has lost several sponsors and has been severely criticized for not doing what the authorities tell him to do.
I watched four games this week/weekend–Bengals/Steelers, Rams/Seahawks, Packers/Vikings, and Bears/Eagles. The amount of political commentary was zero. So, my experience mirrors yours.
I listened to Pats-Dolphins on the radio and watched Colts-Broncos and half of Bears-Eagles before I switched to Cubs-Reds. No political commentary there either. I’ll probably watch USA-Canada tonight to see if Steve Levy or Buccigross will compare and contrast Trump and Trudeau.
Keith, thanks for the extra long list of links this week. And you’re exactly right about the Radiolab piece–I listened a couple weeks ago and it was fascinating and frustrating.
I also applaud your efforts to keep the comment section readable and interesting. It’s been a hallmark of the StB posts that the comment sections are interesting, and it’s unfortunate that they seem to be trending the way of basically every other comment section on the internet–personal attacks, logically…troubling arguments, victim-playing, etc… Do what you can to keep things running smoothly and know it’s greatly appreciated.
“I’m fine with being dismissive of your desire to be free from an important political and social discussion because you’d rather watch your football game without it”
Being dismissive of someone tuning out of a sporting event REGARDLESS of reason is pointless and silly. A complete waste of mental energy. But suit yourself. Instead of “condemning” me and potentially others, you could spend the time and energy actually doing something productive to contribute to a better, more peaceful world.
It’s comments and an underlying mindset like yours that help explain why the “SJW” label gets tossed around in many circles in such a mocking manner. Because it highlights and/or exposes people who seem willing to bend over backwards to criticize someone else for how they react to an issue or situation (sometimes on a tangential or almost unrelated aspect of it) so they can beat their own chests about the wonderful crusade their own to make the world a better place rather than, you know, actually do things to make the world a better place.
I don’t know what you actually do in that regard, but I’ll be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are acting quite a bit behind the scenes to support your strong words, but to reiterate from above, it makes absolutely no sense to expend mental energy criticizing others for how they respond to every nitpicking thing society offers.
I’m not being dismissive of tuning out a sporting event REGARDLESS of the reason. That’s a straw man. For example, if you said you were tuning out the NFL because they let domestic abusers play or because they use tax payer money to build stadiums that enrich already wealthy people, or because the sport appears to result in debilitating injuries and early death to the players, I wouldn’t criticize you. I’m questioning a single reason voluntarily offered up by one poster in the comment section of one blog. And I’m actually not being all that dismissive. If I were truly being dismissive I wouldn’t have even bothered engaging with you. Mostly I’m just questioning your prioritize while repeatedly saying you have every right to stop watching NFL games.
“you could spend the time and energy actually doing something productive to contribute to a better, more peaceful world.
It’s comments and an underlying mindset like yours that help explain why the “SJW” label gets tossed around in many circles in such a mocking manner.”
I’ve written what 4-5 posts and you think that somehow is incompatible with working on social justice? You’ve written far more posts and have managed to help out a local family, so I think it’s reasonable to assume I could write far fewer posts while also helping people out. I don’t think I’m the reason the “SJW” label gets floated around. I think people like you who prefer to attack the messenger rather than what their saying are the reason the SJW label gets floated around. I could have never helped a single person in my entire life and it wouldn’t make the issue of social justice any less important or less valid. Hypocrites can be right, too.
” it makes absolutely no sense to expend mental energy criticizing others for how they respond to every nitpicking thing society offers.”
You’re now criticizing someone who is criticizing someone who came to a blog and expressed disgust over Kaepernick. And based on the unscientific polling here, your criticism doesn’t appear to be based in any actually reality. And you’ve written about 3-4 times as many posts as me, but sure, I’m the one wasting mental energy.
Pardon the grammatical errors in that last post. I haven’t had my coffee.
“…expressed disgust over Kaepernick”
Again, I never did that. I never said I was disgusted with him. In fact, I happen to think he makes fair points and there is work to be done in the area in which he’s bringing attention.
There wasn’t so much a “disgust” with him or even anybody else but just a dismay that sporting events and sports media are turning into sounding boards for political causes. And that makes me less inclined to want to “consume” the entertainment (hint: because it’s becoming less and less entertainment).
While you make some fair points, we’ve long gone past the point of talking past each other on this and figure any more digital ink to be spilled will not be all that fruitful. You can have the last word, if you wish.
Word.
” Based on a pretty wide network of people I engage with, the disgust with having to see an athlete, coach, sports media member, etc. use their venue as a platform to unload their agenda on everyone is getting tiresome.”
That’s from your post on Sept. 17 at 3:57 p.m. I used that word in my posts specifically because you did and yet, here we are.
I’ll try again. Word.