Links first: Today’s chat transcript. My podcast with the drunks at Drunk Jays Fans. Some intriguing-looking jalapeno cornbread with a recipe, although it includes sugar, which makes it corn cake, doesn’t it? Jerry Crasnick wrote a good piece on Adenhart that gets a little more at Adenhart as a person than as a prospect. (Seriously, stop talking about his baseball future. It’s trivial.)
Speaking of Adenhart and the chat, did anyone get what I was saying here?
J.B. (Dunmore, PA): As a father, today’s news really upset me. Three lives lost and another in the driver that is pretty much over. This may sound harsh but I really hope that young man spends a good chunk of his life behind bars.
Keith Law: They should release the other driver and give him a pass to the Angels’ clubhouse for Friday’s game. And then lock the doors.
I was suggesting that the killer (let’s not mince words – that’s what he is) would be locked in the clubhouse with Adenhart’s teammates. It doesn’t read that way to me now.
On to more mundane matters: I was in Sarasota for the last three days and ate a lot of needlessly heavy food. My go-to place from years past, an Amish restaurant called Yoder’s, wasn’t quite up to my memories of it. They’re best known for their pies, and while they do have a great variety, I had three flavors in three days and didn’t love any of them. The strawberry-rhubarb pie was packed but with about 90% rhubarb; if I wanted rhubarb pie, I would have ordered it, since that’s another option. The peach pie and blackberry pie were both filled with gooey cornstarchy liquid and not enough fruit. Their pie crusts are very good, though – tender, not really flaky, very soft and buttery.
The food is mostly comfort food. Their fried chicken is above-average, pressure-fried (the Colonel’s method!) to produce a crisp crust and fully-cooked meat in a shorter time than traditional skillet-frying, which takes about 45 minutes. Unfortunately, the meat I got was lukewarm and I had to send the thigh back. (The drumstick wasn’t much warmer, but you can’t put a fried drumstick in front of me and get it back unless you use the jaws of life.) Their roast turkey is solid-average – it peels apart like it’s been smoked but doesn’t have the slightly rubbery texture that I always associate with smoked turkey – while their smoked pulled pork was moist but kind of flavorless. The stuffing was mushy, and the green beans were grayish-green from overcooking. I did have one meal at another Amish restaurant down the street, called Mom’s, with pretty similar results.
Tropical Thai in northern Sarasota was just bad. The chicken in the chicken with green curry was barely cooked and way too soft – almost like a great steak, except that that texture is great in steak and lousy in poultry – and the sauce had clearly been thickened with some kind of starch, while the vegetables in it were also undercooked.
And one more dud before I get to the two recommendations: Dutch Valley is a diner that claims to be known for its Belgian waffles (spelled “Belgium waffles” on the sign outside, which I now know was a warning). Putting pancake batter on a Belgian waffle iron does not produce a Belgian waffle – it produces a thick, dense, doughy cake-like waffle that, if cooled to room temperature, might make a suitable mattress for a hamster.
Word of Mouth was a better bet for breakfast, at least a solid 50, although I found the food to be a little hit or miss. On the plus side, their scone of the day today was pineapple-coconut (right out of the oven) and it was incredible – slightly dry, like a good scone should be; sweet but not overly so; with bits of actual coconut inside and a crumbly texture. Their home fries are nicely browned and cooked with onions, although today’s onions were more black than brown. The Tex-Mex omelet with chorizo had absolutely no salt in the egg portion, and when I ordered eggs over medium the other day I got something about five seconds past over easy. They serve Harney & Sons teas and the service is very good, but they play awful music (John Mayer on Tuesday, Hootie & the Blowfish today). There are two locations, and I went to the on Cattlemen near Bee Ridge. It’s a solid 50.
Mi Pueblo is a local mini-chain of Mexican places serving mostly the usual fare of burritos, enchiladas, and tacos. Their tacos al carbon with steak were outstanding. The steak was soft – how often have you had steak in a taco or fajita and needed a hacksaw to chew it? Mi Pueblo’s was at the other end of the spectrum. The rice was fresh and gently seasoned, not sticky with tomato paste or sauce. The one I went to, at the corner of McIntosh and Bee Ridge, is tiny and there was a wait when I arrived on a Wednesday night after 7, so the locals seem to have caught on. Based on one dish I’d hazard a grade of 55.
Sorry to move away from the tragedy talk, but “Putting pancake batter on a Belgian waffle iron does not produce a Belgian waffle – it produces a thick, dense, doughy cake-like waffle that, if cooled to room temperature, might make a suitable mattress for a hamster.” was worth the read just by itself. Nice to be able to laugh despite the Adenhart news.
This is where I hate the logic of “slippery slopes” and “great arbiters”. The fact is, we do have the capacity to determine utility and to define standards. We are not bound by some relativistic code that says absolute decisions can not be made. We can objectively say that the gain to the individual for a drunk driver is far outweighed by the potential harm done to himself and others. We don’t need some great arbiter to decide that. Rational, intellectual people can agree on that. This is not true in EVERY situation, obviously, but in such situations like this, we are not bound by the lack-of-universality of this proposal. We can say, “This special situation calls for it.”
And I do not accept the “consequence being in direct connection to outcome”. And our legal system does not accept it for the most part, either. We regularly differentiate between deliberate and accident. Why does someone who follows every traffic rule, yet still manages to cause an accident where someone dies, not get charged for murder? By your logic, they would be. I’m not arguing for intent alone, though you continue to imply that I am. Rather, I think that intent and outcome must both be weighed.
And your dismissal of the examples given does not hold water. Possession and possession with intent to sell carry different penalties. And it is not simply determined by whether the person screamed, “Drugs for sale.” Carrying around large quantities broken down into smaller quantities can be used to justify “intent to sell”. And as for conspiring to commit a crime, plans of action are not necessary. Just ask all the people who have been rounded up in “terrorist sweeps”.
paragraph 1:because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Red Sox fans are insufferable. I may not like it but it is true. It isn’t clear if you are for or against a relative approach. You say there is a standard but it is judged by people. And when we can’t agree we decide on a special situation where a standard can be changed temporarily? You state there is a standard but that is a standard according to a vote of intellectuals? what? I’m not even sure what you’re saying here.
Paragraph 2. We agree both intent and outcome must be weighted. I think the weight of each is the difference we disagree on. these are not mutually exclusive and there is no argument for that. And our legal system does start with the premise that a crime starts with the outcome.
3. You cannot divide up nothing. you divide up your controlled substance. that possession is the crime. the division of the crime (intent to sell, or sell to a minor or whatever) is for prosecution. The cart does not go before the horse.
Terrorist sweeps? Are you a neo-con? This was a joke?
“John UK-
Your point is lost on me. We only care because he was a baseball player? Not at all.”
BSK, I did not make that argument at all – if I made an argument it was we only seem to care because people died and that means we judge outcomes not the crime, profession ofr deceased is irrelevant and I did not mention it.
You seem to have got the right end of what I was saying in terms of it is ludicrous that the crime jumps from DUI to murder judged on outcomes, not the actual crime. I mean is a 2nd offence circa 55 years if you do not kill someone? I guess not no matter how morally equivalent but it surely should be if not custodial an end to lawful use of a motor vehicle as an absolute minimum.
A parallel is Plaxico Burress what if he had shot someone else instead of himself by accident? (he had no control over that gun so it could easily have happened). Crime’s the same? Would even idiots be asking he not get a 3.5 year mandatory?
Brian-
I’m really not following you at all at this point. The slippery slope argument is a tired one. It is based on faulty and lazy logic. If you are really going to back up your argument with it, there is not much I can debate you on at that point. You act as if there is no authority that can be derived, when the fact is, this is exactly what we do. How are decisions ever made? The most common response is, “Oh, well, that’s common sense.” But things are common sense for a reason. Because, for the most part, they are agreed to be objectively right. We are thinking beings capable of determining right from wrong. To say that we need “grand arbiters” to make decisions about tricky situations implies we are incapable of properly judging them. I’m really not following you here.
I still disagree with you that our legal system does not simply begin with outcome. The police respond differently to someone walking down the street with a rifle locked securely in a carrying case than someone running around waving it over there head, because the POTENTIAL outcomes are vastly different. In many cases, outcome is the primary initiative for the system to kick into gear, but not always.
I really don’t get your last point at all. Can’t divide up nothing? What does that even mean? To draw some line between the “crime” and the “prosecution” is pointless. One is meaningless without the other. The crime is different, therefore the prosecution is different. And the crime is judged to be different because the INTENT of the person was different. I was being somewhat sarcastic with “terrorist sweeps”. I was attempting to point out that there are many people who are locked up for ridiculous, trumped up charges, based on a perception of their intent.
By your logic, the police could only be reactive agents, having to stand by on the sidelines waiting for the crime to happen. I hope to got that is not what you REALLY think.
Jon UK –
My apologies. That was meant for the poster above you, TC. I read it wrong. Sorry for the mixup.
Please see paragraph above labeled paragraph 2. I’m not sure how to make this any clearer.
the slipperly slope and grand arbiter argument is a damn good one and you still have not answered either. Calling them stupid does not count. They simply point out the giant gaping hole in your argument.
I’ll try to lay out what I think your positing and why I think you’re wrong. I’ll lay out mine and why I think I’m right. this will be a bit more of a treatise than message board post. I’m not sure we’re going anywhere so you can have the last word and if you’d like to continue perhaps Keith can drop us an email with your email and my email address. we can then place 25,000 word diatribes into one anothers email box.
You appear to be arguing for relative ethics. But you also want to add that there are moral absolute rights and moral absolute wrongs. Moral absolutles and a relative ethical stance are incompatible. I am going to ask you about the grand arbiter every time you place this argument and you can dismiss it, but you really are dead in the water. Call it stupid, say it is lazy, but ultimatly your argument is sunk before you’ve gone anywhere. This is essentially the scope you use when arguing law.
When a law is broken, you already have established that there is a moral right and moral wrong, you’re just trying to establish to what degree. You again seem to confuse relative with the absolute with this system. This of course breaks down into a slippery slope because intent as the prime standard is absurd. (please note absurd is not an attack but rather a proposition that the slippery slope is inescapable because the argument is so bad. It breaks down to absurdity.)
My argument is pure relative ethics. I don’t believe in any absolute standard of good vs evil except that which we deem good vs evil. we as a society can say: infanticide is wrong. But then we’re left with lingering questions of abortion or the nation of China where infanticide is okay if it’s a girl. I don’t think there is a grand arbiter and follow through with that. You do not. You waffle. When we look at laws, a law is only broken once caught. If you speed and aren’t caught, you haven’t done anything wrong. I don’t have a slippery slope argument because laws society sets up aren’t static. They apply when an outcome requires law to apply.
When a man runs a red light my first thought is “that’s a crime.” you’re first thought is, “why did he run a red light?” Is this unfair?
Finally a bit of personal experience: my father in law just got out of prison for white collar crime. Essentially he had fiduciary responsibility to a gentleman who wanted to will my father in law money upon death. there were no laws about this at the time. My father in law went out of his way to show his intent was honorable and that the gentleman willing the money was doing everything of his own volition. Notaries, lawyers, witnesses, certification the gentleman was sane and not duped into anything. The whole 9. during the trail intent wasn’t even an issue. The fact was a supposed crime was committed (was it?) as a man gave money to someone with fiduciary responsibility. There was conflict of interest so a law was created and my father in law spent time in prison and now I have to deal with him and his psychosis. The Prison system is filled with people who were caught doing something wrong (mostly drugs) and their intent isn’t even brought up. I’m sure you’re intent was great, but the fact is you have 100 pounds of meth on you. Prison.
Intent is a factor, but it is not the prime factor and i think you’re being a bit pollyannaish in regards to law. We haven’t even gotten into how you prosecute someone who doesn’t do anything but has intent. I suppose your blithe terrorist sweeps argument would ask that question. I’ll also assume you’re as mad about it as I am.
You get the last word unless you’d like to exchange email.
I don’t know that we really need to go round and round anymore. But, honestly, do you really believe that the slippery slope argument is a “damn good” one?
From Wikipedia:
“In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. In broader, especially recent, pragmatic usage, the term slippery slope argument alternately refers to a non-fallacious argument that such undesirable events are rendered more probable. The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.”
I feel like that does a solid job of demonstrating why, in just about every instance, the slipper slope argument is sloppy. Leaving the specific points of this argument aside, I would generally recommend staying away from such methods of debate, as they ultimately will leave you falling flat on your face when dutifully challenged (which I didn’t necessarily do, I simply dismissed them).
To take the DUI / MLB conversation in a little different direction, I find it interesting that the baseball world is in such an uproar over illegal PED use, but is quick to gloss over when baseball players and managers commit DUI. Something doesn’t compute when Joba Chamberlain pleads guilty to DUI and it barely gets a mention, Tony LaRussa is found asleep at the wheel of a running car and he barely gets slapped on the wrist and JC Romero embibes a substance that’s been banned and he’s suspended for 50 games. If some good can come from Adenhart’s death as it pertains to MLB – even though of course in this case Adenhart was not the one driving under the influence – it will be that MLB cracks down more on drunk drivers.
If that Cardinals kid who died a few years ago driving drunk (his name escapes me right now), why do we think this will change anything? H, you act as if MLB is aware that hypocrisy is a bad thing and perspective is a good thing. For shame!
BSK,
It was Josh Hancock and I am not that naive. Just wishful thinking, I guess.
in our culture dui’s only have relevance on a player as a private person where something like peds have relevance to the game in the public arena. so mlb suspends for a period of time only if it has relevance to the game. does mlb have to police players on their own time?
But brian, there are aspects of MLB’s culture that can possibly promote irresponsible behavior when it comes to drinking and driving. I don’t know that I agree with H on the need to “crack down” on players who drive drunk, but there are other steps they can take to change the culture. Many other leagues, and most other professions, do have some measures in place to discipline employees for out-of-work behavior (some of which I agree with and some of which I vehemently disagree with). MLB had no problem suspending John Rocker for statements he made in SI. MLB has reached a point where the top brass demonstrates such an arrogance that they have no quams with their lack of perspective and tendency to be hypocritical. For me, Selig is fast approaching Roger Goodel as my least fave commish. And the lack of perspective that H talks about it is a big reason.
I think the CBA’s of the NBA and NFL are sort of bizarre in that a player can be suspended for “player conduct”. Without caring too much to actually look it up, I’d assume a “shooter” Plaxico or “Chedder” Adam Jones could simply countersue and continue playing – but again that’s without looking up the CBA. I’m not entirely sure Selig has any right or ability to punish a player for doing something outside of baseball. Urbina I believe was able to play ball even after he hacked up those people and set them on fire.
I don’t think Rocker is a good example though as I’m not sure he even did anything wrong. It’s okay to not like people of another race. Maybe it isn’t kosher these days, but believe it or not, it isn’t a crime to say, “I dislike purple people.” That’s more of an issue of the public getting mad about something they have no right to get mad about and the powers that be reacting to save face.
Wasn’t there a hockey player who was suspended for calling a girl “sloppy seconds”? Who among us has never used such a pejorative term before? I have. Recently.
Keith,
Next time in Sarasota, try C.B.Q for BBQ. Awesome.