With the trade deadline approaching, I’ve had a bit more Insider content than usual this week, including breakdowns of the Ryan Madson/Sean Doolittle trade, the David Robertson/Tommy Kahnle/Todd Frazier trade, and the Tyler O’Neill-Marco Gonzales trade. I also had a long post covering lots of prospects I’ve scouted in the last few weeks, including players from the Phillies, Nationals, Orioles, Red Sox, Atlanta, and Cleveland systems. I held a Klawchat on Friday.
My latest boardgame review for Paste covers the asymmetrical game Not Alone, which pits one player against anywhere from one to six opponents who work together, although we found the game really doesn’t work with just two players and is only slightly better with three.
Thanks to everyone who’s already bought Smart Baseball. I’ve got just a couple of additional book signings coming up:
* Chicago, Standard Club, July 28th, 11:30 am – this is a ticketed luncheon event
* Chicago, Volumes, July 28th, 7:30 pm
* GenCon (Indianapolis), August 17th-20th
And now, the links…
- The President is mobilizing for war against the rule of law. He’s talking about overturning core pillars of our democracy, and as far as I can tell, the vast majority of Republicans back him.
- The Administration also spent taxpayer money collected to encourage ACA enrollment on ads opposing the law.
- A scientist who was reassigned out of his job in the Interior Department – which he says was because he worked on and spoke up about climate change – published an editorial ‘blowing the whistle’ on the Administration’s anti-science machinations. He’s also filed complaints under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
- Reuters is publishing a long investigative report on how Philip Morris is marketing tobacco in the developing world in violation of international agreements.
- I didn’t link to the New York piece on climate change that went viral last week, because it felt a bit like alarmism-porn to me, but I was pleased to see that climate scientists had some serious criticisms of the piece too.
- That original article – the most-read post in New York‘s history – also prompted this response from the New York Times, looking at how Y2K preparations might also help us work to prepare for or combat climate change. The author, Farhad Manjoo, argues that the New York was right to present worst-case scenarios, because that’s the only way to spur skeptics and do-nothings to act.
- Police in Alaska are fighting a law that would ban sexual contact between an officer and sex workers they’re going to arrest. Yes, you read that right: Cops want to be free to molest or have sex with sex workers during investigations.
- A Jehovah’s Witness died after refusing a necessary blood transfusion (because it’s against their religion), and a Pennsylvania court has told her family to stop suing the hospital.
- There’s something awful about the story here, but the headline is incredibly misleading: “My Daughter Was Murdered in a Mass Shooting. Then I Was Ordered to Pay Her Killer’s Gun Dealer.” It omits the part where the grieving mother sued the ammunition supplier, but that a federal law protects gun dealers from such lawsuits and requires plaintiffs to pay court costs. The problem here is that law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and the power that the gun lobby has in our country.
- Disney’s firing of longtime Muppeteer Steve Whitmire, the voice of Kermit the Frog since Jim Henson died in 1990, has gotten very ugly. (Disney owns ESPN, so I am a Disney employee.)
- Speaking of Disney, Vulture – for whom I occasionally write as a freelancer – looks at why the company spent half a billion dollars building an Avatar-themed area in the Animal Kingdom theme park. It might be fun, but how about adding a section to Animal Kingdom based on the Australian movie Animal Kingdom?
- It’s from February 2016, but this profile of Haitian-born Yankees prospect Estevan Florial, by Joel Sherman, is worth reading, especially now that Florial has broken out with his performance this year in low-A Charleston.
- DigBoston looks at racism in Boston sports, especially at WEEI, which has a long history of racist, misogynist, and other bigoted commentary and behavior from hosts. I have refused to go on the station for several years.
- A Republican Congressman from California asked a scientist during a public hearing if it was possible that there had once been an advanced civilization on Mars. We really do elect the worst people to govern us.
- One new study finds 91% of plastic ends up as trash, not recycling. Buy less plastic and reuse what you have.
- “Rape choreography” is an actual role now in film and TV production, but the process takes a toll on everyone involved, even those who are asked to keep the actors safe during filming. Hinted at a few times in that piece: There’s way too much rape in modern film and television.
- I never played much PnP Dungeons & Dragons, but I know many of you did. Paste looks at a new app, D&D Beyond, that may revolutionize the game for DMs and players.
- Still not sure if this New Yorker piece on avocado toast is serious, but I just want to say that I like avocado toast, as long as there’s a fried egg on it.
- Oakland Raiders runningback Marshawn Lynch bought an Oakland soul food place to keep it from closing down. But will they serve biscuits and gravy?
Good morning KLaw,
Any chance you’ll get to make it to WashingCon this year? I know last year you had talked about trying to make it and weren’t able to. For your info, as well as anyone else’s, it’s September 9th and 10th this year (www.washingcon.com)
The racist dopes on the Boston airwaves is nauseating…I know this is a slippery slope re: freedom of speech rights, but at some future point this unadulterated garbage should be treated as hate crimes and an accumulation of these offenses should be subject to criminal punishment…this fear of incarceration is the only way to stop this nonsense…a lot of “brave” guys who can hide behind a computer or telephone, eh?
I have to disagree with you wholeheartedly on the idea of these becoming crimes. They are hateful, idiotic, and just plain wrong, but the fundamental value of freedom of speech is that you can say things that are hateful, idiotic, and just plain wrong. If you could only say things that never angered/offended/annoyed people, then we wouldn’t have freedom of speech. Unlike you are actually inciting violence or intentionally causing risk of bodily harm (i.e. the classic example of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater), criminalizing speech is exactly the wrong way to solve this problem. We need an open dialogue in this country, something that has been sadly lacking for the last couple of decades, and that needs to run the gamut from the overly politically correct to the KKK, and everything in between; otherwise, no one’s opinions will change, and everyone will live in a bubble, which makes all of us more stupid.
Heck, I wholeheartedly disagree with Keith on any number of issues (though I loved his “list” of successful socialist economies in the chat yesterday), but every Saturday I come here to read things that I may not like, may not agree with, and invariably I come away smarter for having been challenged. Now, how does that compare with the racist BS spewed on the airways and internet? Well, because if I simply wanted to criminalize things that I thought were factually wrong, then a lot of what Keith says would be criminalized, and we would all be worse off. Offensive does not mean illegal, and CANNOT mean illegal if free speech is going to survive what is already an onslaught against it in this country.
In re: Keith’s list of socialist economies, though I would certainly not call myself a socialist, I disagreed with that assertion at the time he made it, such that I posted a question about it (didn’t get picked). I continue to disagree with it.
First of all, it should be observed that all modern economies are socialist, in some sectors. Fire departments, for example. Public libraries. Mail service. To a large extent, the question is not “should we have socialism,” but instead “how much socialism is desired?”
Second, there are different flavors of socialism. I would agree that the Marxist and/or Leninist models have not been successful. But the East Asian model seems to be doing fairly well in China (if we’re solely considering economy, and not social issues). And the social democratic model is a great success in Scandinavia and a few other European nations. (note that I am using János Kornai’s categorizations of the different types of socialism here).
In short, I think that blanket condemnations of any system of government that has been tried by literally billions of people are probably inherently a little facile.
China has achieved growth, but at the cost of widespread poverty and environmental degradations.
The Norse economies are not socialist by any normal definition of the term. The means of production are privately owned. These are capitalist economies with broad social welfare structures.
CB, I think you have a better argument with the Scandinavian states than the Chinese and other east Asian models. Is an economy in which crushing poverty is as commonplace as in China, Laos, Vietnam, etc., truly successful? I would argue not at all. Sure, there is absolutely success for an extremely small percentage of people, but is that sustainable? They keep having to make their economy more and more capitalist to encourage growth. The same has occurred everywhere an east Asian “socialist” state has experienced significant growth.
I think that, in the end, we are basically in agreement on most of this.
First of all, to address some specific comments: I tend to think of China as being roughly the equivalent of Gilded Age America. Great wealth, great poverty, terrible on the environment, but setting the groundwork for long-term success. I would describe that as a very profound form of progress, albeit not a pretty one. As to the Nordic economies, there are definitely plenty of people who describe them as socialist, including Kornai.
In any event, all I am really arguing–I would say–is that there’s a spectrum, with pure capitalism at one end, and pure socialism at the other. It’s true that economies way at the socialist end of the spectrum have not worked well, but it’s also true that the far end of the capitalist spectrum doesn’t work well either. The only real question, then, is “What’s the best place to be that is at or near the middle of the spectrum?”
I would be willing to go further and say that there’s wide agreement on most aspects of that question. For example, nobody wants Roman-style private firefighters, who negotiate their price with you as your house burns. Ergo, I would say most or all people agree that fire departments should be socialized. And law enforcement, and provision of water, and national defense, and old-age insurance, and roads, and a host of other things. Meanwhile, I think nearly everyone agrees that other aspects of the economy don’t work very well when socialized. Car production for example–nobody wants to drive a Yugo. Airlines. Agriculture.
If my assumptions are correct, then it means that when we argue about “socialism,” we’re really only talking about a few areas that are in dispute. Health care, most obviously. A guaranteed minimum income, to name another. College tuition. And so, what I am saying–in so many words–is that some countries (i.e. the Nordic states) have done pretty well setting the dial a bit closer to the socialist end of the spectrum than the United States has done.
While I agree that there is a spectrum, if the primary means of production are in private rather than government hands, then it’s not socialism. Encyclopedia Brittanica defines it as “Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.” That’s just not the case in any of the Nordic countries (with the exception of Norway’s Statoil, a publicly-traded firm that is majority-owned by the government of Norway).
Even China is somewhere in the grey area; the economy didn’t grow until Deng Xiaopeng enacted market-economy reforms in the late 1970s and 1980s, but some means of production and resources remain under government control. I’ve seen the term “socialist market economy,” which reminded me of when Graham Greene referred to himself as a “Catholic atheist.” You can’t have both.
who am I to argue with the Encyclopedia Britannica (or the classical definition of socialism) stating that it’s public ownership of the means of production. then again, the modern vernacular appears to allow “planned economy” as a definition of socialism
then again again, people yell “socialism” when a government raises a marginal tax rate from 35 to 39 percent.
then again again, people yell “socialism” when a government raises a marginal tax rate from 35 to 39 percent.
That’s the core problem in any discussion of socialism: I think the term’s connotation no longer resembles its actual definition.
And therein lies the rub. If we define socialism as Marxism (e.g. the government controls the means of production), then I agree there are no successful socialist economies. If we define socialism more broadly–as, I must say, most scholars and political theorists do today–then I would disagree that there are no successful socialist economies.
Jeremy, you’re to be commended for your open-mindedness (I guess), but can you elaborate on your comment that “a lot of what Keith says would be criminalized” if we criminalized things that were factually wrong? Like WHAT, for example? I can see you taking issue with his opinions, but inferences and beliefs are not the same as facts. So, how about giving us a list of 10 or 15 errors in fact Keith has cited in the last few months so as to support your claim that “a lot” of what says is counterfactual?
Did Jeremy claim I make counterfactual statements? I didn’t get that sense from his comment.
AJ, I think you misread or misinterpreted. I said if what I thought was wrong was illegal, a lot of what Keith said would be illegal. He and I disagree on a lot of things that are opinion based; when it comes to factual issues (i.e. climate change and other science) we are in lock-step. I think Keith would be the first person to admit that much of what he says is his opinion, and subject to significant disagreement, rather than entirely fact based.
While I share your concern of Trump on the Chait article, I have a hard time taking Chait serious. I think he often is in hysterics because a republican does something wrong. When a democrat does it he pays no mind. There have been a lot of criticism from the left of Chait (and of course from the right) about these partisan pundits and their two-faced takes. While they may have truth in articles they write but I’m always skeptical of them because they clearly have an anti-republican bias that colors their writing.
At this point Trump hasn’t had evidence presented that he’s done anything illegal but we are quick to condemn. If this was a democratic president Chait would be in full defense mode. I just want folks who care about the actions of an individual instead of the letter in front of a politicians name.
Thanks as always for these links. I remember Watergate and we are so far beyond that now. Reading and therapy are the only things that keep my from drowning these days. Do you have any other suggestions to help deal with what are increasingly crazy times?
Thanks for your elaboration, Jeremy. If I understand you now, you meant to say that you sometimes disagree with Keith’s opinions, but you did not mean to accuse him of being “factually wrong” a lot. (What you meant, I guess, is that you WRONGLY thought at times he was being “factually wrong.”) I do want to insist that it matters a great deal whether we say something is “factually wrong” or just “wrong.” (You drop the word “factually” when you quote yourself in your follow-up post.) Let’s in any case end by agreeing that neither of us favors criminalizing Keith for being wrong (as I think he occasionally is) or being factually wrong (which I think he almost never is).
You’re right, I shouldn’t have put the word factually in there that time; it detracted from what I was saying. He does, however, make statements that he may believe to be factual, that you or I, or anyone else, may disagree with, so I don’t think your point here is entirely accurate.
Additionally, I would like to encourage you to be careful, particularly on the internet where tone is difficult to interpret, in how you also phrase things; your previous message was worded in a way that I took to be personally attacking me, rather than the civil discourse that I know Keith values here, as I’m sure do you. I suspect you did not mean it to be an attack, but it did read that way, and that is one reason that the internet is a difficult medium in which to engage in meaningful discussion. Things are hard to interpret without the tone and body language that make up so much of our communication in person, and misinterpretation (yours of my first post, likely mine of your tone in your response to the same) runs rampant.
An important aspect of New York’s article is that the magazine went to great lengths to explain that it was worst-case, and explained how likely/unlikely that worst-case is. The alarmists of the 80s did no one a favor by conjuring up worst-cases that quickly proved wildly wrong.