The hot stove was cooking with gas this week, so I managed to get a fair amount of writing done about the various deals, such as …
* Friday’s three-way trade involving the Yanks, Tigers, and Dbacks
* The Andrew Miller contract with the Yankees
* The Nick Markakis deal with Atlanta, with smaller deals like the Happ/Saunders trade included in this post
* The Nelson Cruz deal with Seattle, maybe the worst of the offseason so far
I also posted a review of the two-player deckbuilding game Star Realms late Friday night.
This week’s links…
- Our Ability To Digest Alcohol May Have Been Key To Our Survival. The common ancestor we share with chimps and gorillas developed an enzyme, ADH4, about 10 million years ago, that enabled them to digest foods that had begun fermentation. You had me at “alcohol,” though.
- Also via NPR, Why did non-GMO versions of cereals lose their vitamins? Maybe the whole GMO/non-GMO dichotomy isn’t as clean and simple as the labeling advocates (with whom I tend to side) argue it is? Besides, I’ve pointed out before that no GMO foods will mean no more bananas some day soon.
- So much for the Big Bang’s afterglow, which confirmed the standard theory of cosmology so well that researchers are actually disappointed. By the way, did you know the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, the Belgian George Lemaître?
- There were a lot of great (if infuriating) stories this week about hockey blogger/creeper Steve Lepore harassing women via Twitter DMs and Gchat, but this story from the Blonde Side was the best/most infuriating, because it happened so long ago and because Lepore’s boss/editor/some authority figure at the time just blew it off.
- This ThinkProgress piece argues that a 21st Circuit Court judge could appoint a special prosecutor in Ferguson and try to get a new indictment. I fully concede I’m not a lawyer and don’t know if this is accurate, but a fresh grand jury proceeding with an impartial prosecutor sounds like a good idea for the community. I’d love to hear some lawyers in the audience weigh in on whether this is a legitimate argument and/or whether it would be a smart move.
I love how you try and deny from time to time the fact you’re a left-wing hack. Just look at the topics in this post. You’re quoting ThinkProgress and suggest you’d welcome them continue to pursue charges against Darren Wilson when the forensic evidence and much of the testimony essentially says “nothing to see here.” You’re bloviating about Big Bang and evolutionary crap as part of your ongoing anti-theist crusade. And you seem to lean heavily into the non-GMO camp. It’s funny how you occasionally hedge just a little with your quips (how Paul Krugman of you) to give yourself a little wiggle room so as not to appear hyper-partisan, but anyone paying any attention can see right through it. You’re nothing more than a self-aggrandizing jerk.
Not in this post, but I almost forget about your recent attempt to tear down Twins outfielder Torii Hunter. Classic dick move, just like the journalist at the press conference. It’s beyond laughable to the point of being pathetic that anything Torii has said would remotely create a “hostile work environment” as you suggest.
That mule must have a stick for a saddle.
MuleRider-
You are wrong not to mention a racist thug.
The physical evidence DOES not confirm Officer Willson’s account of the events. Most eyewitness testimony in fact refuted his account. You just think it’s perfectly okay for a white police officer to kill an unarmed black man.
As for Torri Hunter. If you use a slur to describe gay men and women or fight to deny them the basic rights. You are a bigot and deserve whatever is coming to you. Defending people like that is a dick move.
You don’t like the author fine, but stop trying to hide behind some bizarre right wing version of the truth.
The word “Thug” Is a racist dog whistle now. Please update your vocabulary.
” Most eyewitness testimony in fact refuted his account.”
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate and therefore unreliable. The forensic evidence largely supports the officer’s account. It’s that simple. Thanks for playing, though.
“You are wrong not to mention a racist thug.”
Curious, what did I say to make you think I believe certain races to be superior/inferior to one another or that I may be a violent criminal? Since there’s nothing in my posts to suggests either of those things, we’d have to assume you to be clairvoyant. But since you’re likely a Keith Law fanboy and therefore don’t believe in any supernatural abilities, it would be consistent for you to reject such insights. That aside, it’s just flat-out wrong and little more than a scurrilous accusation.
“You just think it’s perfectly okay for a white police officer to kill an unarmed black man.”
No, but I do believe a police officer of any color has the right to use lethal force when necessary against another human being of any color if the situation justifies it.
“As for Torri Hunter. If you use a slur to describe gay men and women or fight to deny them the basic rights. You are a bigot and deserve whatever is coming to you.”
People use “slurs” all the time. It’s hard to say practically anything without offending somebody. I don’t raise an eyebrow when someone uses ‘insulting language towards another person or group of people (which is subjective in the case of things Torii may have said), but I do take issue when someone uses those ill feelings to infringe upon the rights of others. However, I don’t guess I see where Torii’s been “fighting” to do what you say. Any evidence? Oh, by the way, we all deserve what we have coming.
“Defending people like that is a dick move.”
I don’t have any problem defending Torii from bullying and harassment over off-the-cuff remarks he made a couple of years ago, especially when it results in a “journalist” hounding him at a press conference.
“You don’t like the author fine, but stop trying to hide behind some bizarre right wing version of the truth.”
There’s no “right-wing” version (or left-wing, for that matter) of the truth. Just the truth. Which is what I stand for, now and always.
I am a civil, not criminal, lawyer but on Tony Kornheiser’s podcast Abby Lowell discussed grand juries and their function. It was pretty instructive. I also read the transcript and believe the Ferguson prosecutor did a very poor job attempting to get the indictment. A lawyer accumulates relevant evidence and tries to deliver the most persuasive of that evidence to the trier of fact (jury) in an understandable fashion. In Ferguson, it seemed the prosecutor threw everything at the jury without consideration to the strength and complexity of the evidence. The prosecutor never seemed to make a good faith efforts to clear up any discrepancies or conflicting evidence (such as the nurse’s observations that Officer Wilson did not appear like he was in an altercation). That said, indictments against police officers are inherently difficult because law enforcement usually make split second decision and the police are given substantial discretion by juries. Even if the Ferguson jury indicted, the chances of a conviction would have been extremely low. I am also not certain whether the Ferguson community would just satisfied with an indictment and trial that resulted in an acquittal.
I never want to categorize anyone but why would it be bad to be a liberal? Or progressive? Weird that’s seem as a bad thing.
Regarding slurs, I believe Torii Hunter made his comments regarding gays to a baseball reporter when Hunter could have stayed mute or deflected the question or issued the customary “no comment.” Once it became public, then it had the potential to effect the workplace. So I believe the questions recently posed to Hunter were fair. While people may make slurs all the time, I believe an overwhelming majority do not slur individual’s gender, race, sexuality…at the workplace nor make public those slurs. Fair or unfair part of Hunter’s (and all MLB players’) duties include dealing with the media. Although Hunter has a right to believe what he wants, he has to face the consequences once he publicly airs those opinions.
Mule Rider:
You’re not nearly as clever as you think you are.
To start with, I don’t really know how Keith would identify politically, but the views I’ve seen him express are more libertarian than anything else (if I HAD to pick a “category”). He combines a generally liberal outlook on social issues (pro-gay rights, anti-racism, pro-science) and a more conservative-leaning outlook on fiscal issues (prefers lower taxes, more responsible spending by the government, etc.). Indeed, as I think about it, I’m not sure there’s a whole lot that Keith and Barry Goldwater would have disagreed on. And Barry Goldwater was most certainly not a liberal.
Second, I am forced to conclude that you are, like me, a white male. And, if so, I don’t think you’re in any position to decide whether or not offensive words matter. I also think you don’t quite get the concept of a hostile work environment, and you DEFINITELY don’t have your facts about Torii Hunter correct. In fact, he appeared in a commercial just one month ago expressing his opposition to gay equality. He has also gone on the record MANY times with his views that homosexuality is wrong, anti-Christian, etc. If I was a gay teammate, I would assume–correctly, I think–that he did not like me. And if we have to work together, guess what? That’s a hostile work environment.
Third, your statement that, “It’s hard to say practically anything without offending somebody.” Please spare us this kind of horseshit. I am a history professor, and I spent 12 hours a week lecturing to a group of approcimately 200 diverse students on some very tricky issues–race/racism, politics, the Middle East and Islam, women’s rights, war, slavery, gay rights, Native Americans, etc. I’ve been doing it for 10 years, and I’ve managed never to offend anybody, because I choose my words carefully and I endeavor to be respectful of all viewpoints. And lest you say, “Well, the students would be too afraid to take offense,” let me stop you. They have multiple avenues for communicating their concerns anonymously, should they wish to do so.
Fourth, and finally, I really wish that people like you would take a basic civics lesson. When you speak of Torii Hunter’s “rights,” you are raising a COMPLETELY irrelevant point. Torii Hunter’s rights have not been violated, inasmuch as he’s been allowed to express his views, and the government has not silenced him or imprisoned him. That is where his rights end–he is not free from criticism for his bigoted views, and he is not free to act on his bigotry in the workplace.
“He has also gone on the record MANY times with his views that homosexuality is wrong, anti-Christian, etc. If I was a gay teammate, I would assume–correctly, I think–that he did not like me.”
And therin lies your critical error. Christians believe that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” and thus recognize that the problem is internal to them, and the solution is external in the person and work of Jesus Christ. When a Christian says, “hey, that’s sin,” they’re not speaking from a pedestal of perfection, but as one who has sinned themselves and seen their life transformed by grace. Wanting that for another person couldn’t possibly be further from disliking them or being bigoted. Westboro Baptist? Yeah, THOSE guys are bigoted–and you often see Christians at the forefront in denouncing their hatred.
Notwithstanding deserving groups like Westboro Baptist, though, I find the rampant misuse of the term “bigot” incredibly frustrating. Unfortunately, it’s a tactic to which the LBGT “lobby” (for lack of a better term) have resorted–and to great success–because in the past when they tried to actually engage with the philosophical and moral arguments against homosexuality, they gained no traction with a very unconvinced public. But by co-opting the guise of actual civil rights issues, they’ve circumvented these intellectual obstacles by waging all-but-open war on freedom of speech, with terms like “bigot” and “homophobe” used to silence discussion rather than further it.
BIP: Please.
First of all, here are some of Torii Hunter’s actual words: “”For me, as a Christian … I will be uncomfortable because in all my teachings and all my learning, biblically, it’s not right It will be difficult and uncomfortable.” Gee, it’s really hard to see how a gay person might read that and think they are both a target of judgment and hostility from Torii Hunter. He REALLY is making clear how he too is sinful, and he TOTALLY understand how it’s an issue we all have to cope with together.
Second, gay equality IS a civil rights issue. They, like African Americans before them, are being denied basic rights (like marriage) without a legitimate basis. If something does demonstrable harm to a society or to other individuals–yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, deliberately spreading falsehoods about someone–then stopping that is an appropriate purview of the government. “The Bible says it’s wrong” is NOT a legitimate basis for denying basic rights, any more than “They’re not smart enough to vote” or “America was made by white people, for white people.”
Third, if your standard for bigotry is the WBC, and anything short of that is ok, I don’t even know what to say. I guess the only racists in the South were the KKK, and everyone else was just a good ol’ boy.
Fourth, I just love it when the argument that anyone who uses the term ‘bigot’ or ‘homophobe’ is the REAL bigot. Perhaps you could also advise us all that whoever smelt it dealt it.
I’ll take your comments in reverse order because you started out okay and then plummeted rapidly:
4- This wasn’t my point. It’s fair to say that it follows from my argument, at least to some degree, but I’m much more interested in how these hasty and inaccurate labels stifle productive conversation that directly engages with the issues. But since you brought it up, the logical incoherence of the “new tolerance” is definitely an interesting topic. If we are supposed to tolerate everything except intolerance, that falls apart immediately for obvious reasons. Notwithstanding that, the moral relativism that undergirds that idea carries with it a lot of consequences that I doubt most people could genuinely accept.
3- This is a strawman. That I’ve presented a very obvious example doesn’t mean that’s where I draw the line.
2- No, sorry, it’s not a civil rights issue. The short answer (which you definitely won’t like) is that homosexuals have always been allowed to marry… someone of the opposite sex, because that’s what marriage IS–at least by any sort of metaphysically rigorous definition. It’s also silly to compare the issue to racial discrimination, since race is an immutable characteristic, and sexuality definitely is not. I mean, not even the staunchest racists have ever argued that it’s morally wrong to be black. Yes, I know that many people now believe that homosexuals are “born gay,” but studies of identical twins have emphatically refuted this. I don’t actually think that homosexuality is 100% behavioral, and neither do said studies, but to the extent that it is, it’s fair game for moral evaluation (by definition), and so civil rights claims don’t apply, much like it’s not a civil rights issue that we prohibit convicted felons from voting. Want to vote? Don’t commit a serious crime. Want to get married? Find someone you’re biologically compatible with.
1- If a person feels something is morally wrong, I’m not sure what’s so shocking about being uncomfortable around it. I do think you’ve made somewhat of a reasonable point, since simply being around a homosexual isn’t the same as witnessing homosexual acts, but then again, there’s the attractional component of homosexuality, which, yeah, I could see how Torii Hunter might feel uncomfortable wondering if a teammate is attracted to him. Then AGAIN–and here I’m undoubtedly going to shock you–I don’t think homosexual attraction is wrong in and of itself! So let’s at least agree that Torii Hunter could have been a bit more articulate. I guess what I would say is that, for a Christian, calling a behavior sinful may be valid, but it’s an incomplete thought if it’s not connected to the hope of the gospel. If all you read was the first half of Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death”, you’d rightly think Christianity is pretty harsh and unloving, but the second half of the verse reveals the true heart of Christianity: “but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
While I welcome debate and disagreement here, I will not tolerate insults directed at me or other readers. That has always been my one and only commenting policy, so I’ve blocked Mule Rider’s IP address. Any reasonable adult can tell me s/he thinks I’m wrong without resorting to childish insults.
In our current culture, if you veer toward the center, you’re a bleeding heart to half the people you interact with, and a right-wing nutjob to the other half. These things should not be.
BIP:
Re 4: There is no doubt that powerful words and concepts are sometimes used inappropriately as weapons, for whatever reason. Whether it’s denouncing someone as a racist, or a sexist, or a bigot, or a Nazi, or (as we are apparently seeing at UVA) falsely accusing someone of being a rapist. That does not mean, however, that every time those words or concepts are used, that they are false. Furthermore, as an (obvious) political liberal, I am pleased to hear–to tolerate–views that differ from mine. I welcome the chance to examine my own views and to understand what others thing. I am not, however, willing to tolerate ideas/attitudes/statements that denigrate or oppress whole segments of the population, whether “African Americans aren’t as smart as whites,” or “Poor people are just lazy” or “Gays are immoral.” Such attitudes are the very definition of bigotry.
Re 3: Your verbiage is the problem here, not my desire to build a strawman. You did not say, “There are definitely a lot of bigots in the world, and WBC are some of the worst.” You said: “The WBC, now THAT is what a bigot looks like.” And I’m saying: “Torii Hunter, now THAT is also what a bigot looks like.” I am nonetheless pleased to hear that you recognize that bigots are not always as cartoonishly obvious as the WBC.
Re 2: I think you need to re-examine what is a “fact” and what is not. Your “metaphysically rigorous definition” of marriage is an opinion, and one that has many exceptions among cultures of the world today, in history, and among non-human species. The rest of your statement is also rife with errors. For example, you say “not even the staunchest racists have ever argued that it’s morally wrong to be black.” You are wrong, wrong, wrong. I’ve noted above that I’m a professor of history. My field is the US Civil War. And I can assure you that many, many people before and after the war argued that African-Americans’ enslavement/oppression was justified on the basis of their inherent immorality. You might also look at 19th century Mormon views on blackness for more on this point.
Meanwhile, you are also completely wrong in your understanding of the research on gay twins. That is what happens when you get your information from someone with a political axe to grind, rather than doing the legwork for yourself. The seminal analysis, in this area, was conducted by Bailey and Pillard. They looked at 100 or so sets of twins, some fraternal and some identical, in which one twin was openly gay. The scientists then looked to see if the other twin was gay, as well. What they found was that about 20% of the fraternal twins were also gay, and about 50% of the identical twins were also gay. What this clearly indicates is that homosexuality is at least PARTLY environmental (otherwise, the identical twins would all be gay), but is also partly genetic (otherwise, identical twins would not be gay 250% more often than non-identical twins). This conclusion basically encapsulates modern thinking on homosexuality–that it’s part genetic and part environmental. And not that you’re actually going to do your research, since you’ve clearly made up your mind, but nonetheless a good scholar provides his citations, so here it is: J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Re 1: It would seem we are in vague agreement that Torii Hunter’s words were problematic. The problem is that he didn’t just “slip up” one time–he’s expressed these views over and over and over. Further, he has lent his fame and his money to efforts to limit gay rights and marginalize gay people. If I was a black man and an athlete, could I potentially be comfortable with Riley Cooper–who erred once, at least on the record–as a teammate? Maybe. But could I be comfortable with someone like Cap Anson, who consistently expressed racist sentiments, and worked to maintain white superiority. No.
Just out of Curiosity – do people arguing that gay people are immoral always tend to be religious or are there those who aren’t religious who believe this?
I’m curious if the answer to that question reflects poorly on individuals or the religion(s) in question?
Keith, sorry and glad that you had to block mulerider, it’s unfortunate that you asked for legal opinions on the grand jury matter and received that diatribe from him and his ridiculous comments thereafter.
Regarding, the grand jury fiasco, not sure if you saw the articles on fivethirtyeight, which details the horrible history of grand jury indictments when police officers are involved vs indictments when police officers are not involved? It’s downright embarrassing and presents an incredibly logical step in which to improve the entire process…namely, indict more rogue cops!
Jeopardy doesn’t attach when a grand jury fails to indict so a special prosecutor would be able to try again to indict Wilson.