The big piece from me this week was about GenCon, the massive annual boardgaming convention held in Indianapolis; I went from Thursday to Sunday and my wrapup post covers every game I saw or tried, with a ranking of my top 20. I even slipped in a mention of some upcoming boardgame apps of note.
My latest piece for Insiders was a minor league scouting notebook covering prospects from Pittsburgh (Mitch Keller), Baltimore (Austin Hays), Philadelphia, and Colorado’s systems. I also did my annual rankings of the top tools in the majors: the top hit, run, and power tools, the best pitches of each type, and the
top gloves and arms for catchers, infielders, and outfielders. I don’t particularly love writing these pieces, but readers seem to enjoy them. And I held a Klawchat on Thursday.
I gave a Talk at Google last month, discussing my book Smart Baseball, which you should definitely buy if you haven’t already.
And now, the links…
- My friend Will Leitch speaks sense when he says the ESPN/Robert Lee flap was “much ado about nothing.”
- Sam Miller described a trick play in a Rhode Island high school baseball game called skunk in the outfield. The play took 2:32 to complete and includes former Red Sox prospect Ryan Westmoreland.
- Texas’ Republican Party believes so much in suppressing the vote that they’ve been wasting taxpayer money for six years fighting the courts and repeatedly losing. If the current Administration gets to pick some more federal judges, however, such efforts may end up succeeding.
- The Interior Department has killed a study into the effects of coal mining on the miners. Trump’s Administration is obsessed with coal, which is dirty, exhaustible, and not a part of our energy future.
- Gwyneth Paltrow’s pseudoscience site GOOP has been hit with formal complaints of deceptive advertising, mostly because they claim their bullshit actually works.
- Stephan Neidenbach, a middle school teacher in Maryland and operator of the @welovegv (GMOs and Vaccines) twitter account, has used FOIA requests to find conflicts of interest and malfeasance from anti-GMO academics. Genetically modified organisms are safe, and academics who attack them do so in contravention of the evidence on the topic to date.
- “Poland Spring … coming to you straight from the water main.” A lawsuit says it’s just tap water, not spring water as the company claims.
- Former Google engineer James Damore claims he was “fired for telling the truth,” but the truth is that his now infamous memo was based on some seriously flawed beliefs about science.
- Jess Luther exposes the deep ignorance of deposed University of Minnesota football coach Tracy Claeys, who still doesn’t think he or his players did anything wrong.
- The Washington Post looks at what actual anti-fascist protestors, dubbed “antifa,” do and believe. You’ll hear the alt-right/neo-Nazi camp use “antifa” to try to draw some false equivalence between racist shitheads and those who oppose them. Don’t fall for it.
- A British prisoner is now in year 11 of what was supposed to be a 10-month jail term under the bogus claim that it’s for his own protection, as he has a history of self-harm. Family members are trying to get him released before he kills himself in custody.
- VICE’s Tonic has a first-person account from someone who got a staph infection from a hospital visit.
- The civil war in Yemen has been going on for 29 months, but is rarely in our news because there’s little oil there. A Saudi-led airstrike in the capital of Sana’a killed at least 14 civilians, including children, but nobody seems to care.
- Angola, another country you never think about – John Oliver would do a map joke here – just elected its first new leader in 38 yeras. It’s expected to be someone from the outgoing dictator’s party, and the elections have been anything but free. Still, it’s their first change in leadership since 1979, and given their atrocious economy and widespread poverty, any change has to seem like a chance for optimism.
- TIME looks at how youth sports became a $15 billion industry. If your kid has talent, s/he doesn’t need to go pay to play at events for scouts or coaches. Save the cash and put it in a tax-deferred account for his/her tuition instead.
- I’ll end with one feel-good story: The cloakroom girl at a British opera house had to step in when the soprano fell ill – and wowed the audience.
I’ll be interested to see the evidence put forward in the Poland Spring litigation. I grew up about 30 minutes from the original spring, and there was a running joke/common belief when I was a kid that only suckers bought Poland Spring water, because it was just well-branded tap water. I’m not sure if anyone truly believed that, but it always stuck with me.
I nitpick because I’m a jerk, I guess. But Keith, if you put money for your kids into a college savings account, it would actually be a “tax-free”, not tax-deferred, account, as long as it is used for qualifying higher education expenses. Sorry for being that way.
You’re not being a jerk and that’s a significant distinction. Thanks.
There are actually two components, and both modifiers are correct. The money grows tax-deferred, and qualified withdrawals are tax-free, but non-qualified withdrawals subject to taxes and penalties still grew tax deferred.
I think you underestimate the health of the overall Angolan economy. While there is still an enormous underclass making an extremely small amount, there is also a sizeable middle class and, with the exception of the last couple years when the price of oil has tanked, they have had enormous growth. According to the World Bank, they need to diversify to correct that slowing growth, but they aren’t a backwater.
I could be out of date; I’m basing it in large part on Paul Theroux’s account in Last Train to Zona Verde.
“…false equivalence between racist shitheads and those who oppose them. Don’t fall for it.”
Who are you trying to kid?! There are unquestionably hateful, violent thugs representing the Antfia, just as there are hateful, violent thugs representing the neo-Nazis and other related groups.
And ultimately, all hateful, violent thugs should be repudiated and soundly excoriated, regardless of their underlying political/ideological motivations.
This should be very straightforward, and the misinformation and apparent denial that certain ideological camps contain violent, authoritarian extremists just enables them and makes the problem worse.
My message to you then is: there’s a massive chunk of the corporate media and political elite that want us to believe that our only problems with hatred and violence are from the extreme right-wing/neo-Nazi/etc. camp. Don’t fall for it.
The false equivalency is that peaceful anti-Nazi counter-protesters are morally equivalent to peaceful* Nazis.
* People advocating for separation of races and/or self-deportation are inherently non-peaceful.
To further the point, yes, this looks like an innocent, well-intentioned organization whose only objective is to stand up to racism/fascism/etc.
“No room for capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, “classical liberals” or supporters of the US constitution in our city.”
https://twitter.com/AntifaBoston/status/899132254202589186
This isn’t an organization; this is some rando’s twitter account. I could have made that.
While there are certainly violent extremists on the left, this does very much seem to be more of a right-wing phenomenon, at least over the last couple of decades.
https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-deaths-ideology-charlottesville-anomaly
The focus on tactics obscures the aims, and intentionally so.
The “AntifaBoston” Twitter account has been proven to be a fake
Source: GQ
“…at least over the last couple of decades.”
I like how you caught yourself there. Much like those who state, “Since 9/11, right-wing terrorism…”
With that in mind, your “last couple of decades” is purely arbitrary. Let’s draw on a much larger sample – say, the entire 20th century – and see what we find. Ah, yes, the atrocities of Stalin and Mao. Imagine that, examples of widespread violence and mayhem on the part of the left.
Far more lives have been lost in the name of “equality” than in the name of “supremacy” throughout human history.
False.
As a history major, concentrating on international relations with an eye for the first half of the 20th century, I’d be interested to see proof backing up you claim regarding lives lost to “equality” over “supremacy.”
Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Julius Caesar, William I, Hirohito…that’s gotta be well over a hundred million on the supremacy side, and I didn’t even have to think much.
To the supremacy side, you can also add every death due to slavery, every death due to segregation, every death due to institutional racism that keeps people of color in poor or dangerous neighborhoods or denies them access to health care or to healthful food.
And yes, including power-hungry tyrants like Stalin or Mao on the “equality” side represents deep ignorance of their motives and policies.
My sneaking suspicion is that he is counting, say, Stalin or Mao on the “equality” side, since they were both Communists. It’s the same logic that says that because the Klansmen of the 1870s were all Democrats, that the Democratic Party is actually the racist one….
My “last couple of decades” timeframe was in no way arbitrary. If you had bothered to read the article I had linked to, you would have understood that it examined at violent extremism in the US over the last 25 years. But I suppose arguing with straw men is more satisfying.
I found the GMO article interesting, but as an academic, I have major qualms about such use of FOIA requests. Frivolous requests waste a lot of peoples’ time (and thus taxpayer dollars) with the sole goal of fishing for something embarrassing. I’m not sure how to best fight our current state of scientific illiteracy, but I’m fairly certain that digging for conflicts-of-interest will not work.
“My sneaking suspicion is that he is counting, say, Stalin or Mao on the “equality” side, since they were both Communists.”
Yes, I am making the case that the Stalins and Maos of history (as well as the Che Gueveras, Castros, and Maduros) are representing “equality,” “not “supremacy.”
” It’s the same logic that says that because the Klansmen of the 1870s were all Democrats, that the Democratic Party is actually the racist one…”
Not necessarily….and I sure as heck am not making that case or argument. I think it is foolish, ignorant, and certainly disingenuous for people to slap the KKK label on the Democratic Party simply because of political labels used generations or even a century or more ago.
That said, the mainstream left – liberals, progressives, etc. – in this country has a massive “ownership” problem with regard to hatred and violence and comes off as dangerously hypocritical in the process. They will bend over backwards and tie themselves into pretzels trying to connect any hint of right-wing extremism, hatred, violence, etc. to mainstream elements of conservatism or libertarianism but will engage in flat-out denial when it comes to dangerously extremist/hateful elements with a shared ideology. I have seen many a left-leaning person, who’s had instances of hatred/violence/etc. emanating from people claiming a leftist/progressive ideology and claiming to further a leftist/progressive agenda through these heinous acts pointed out to them, respond almost verbatim, “Well those people CAN’T be REAL liberals/progressives because they did (insert terrible action that was pointed out to them that they don’t like).”
“…over the last 25 years. But I suppose arguing with straw men is more satisfying.”
I don’t care who it was that picked the 25-year timeframe, it is most certainly arbitrary if you’re really trying to get a full history of violence and terrorism by ideology.
Sorry but while the most recent 25 years at least has “recency” on its side as being useful to look at, it’s but a mere blip on the full arc of human history (small sample size) and furthermore is among the least violent 25-year stretches in all of human history (not a good representative sample).
Also, you apparently need to look up the definition of what a straw man is first before flinging a fallacy accusation inaccurately.
You specifically shifted the timeframe away from what I had posted about – the last couple of decades – and engaged with an argument that I wasn’t making. Whether intentional or not (as it is clear you didn’t read what I linked to), the effect is the same.
“And yes, including power-hungry tyrants like Stalin or Mao on the “equality” side represents deep ignorance of their motives and policies.”
Sorry, but I think it is you here who is deeply ignorant of motives and policies of those horrific tyrants of the past.
Your trouble seems to be an inability to distinguish “authoritarian” and “supremacist.” What you, and others, appear to be doing is lumping any and all “authoritarians” into the supremacy camp. What you’re missing is that authoritarians can and do come from multiple/different ideological camps, and you can most certainly have someone who represents the “authoritarian-left.” That seems to be your blind spot in this. As soon as someone displays authoritarianism, you want to consider them a supremacist (presumably just because they’re willing to use violence to kill or subjugate their fellow man). While the end result (violence/death) may be the same as what you see with supremacists (authoritarian-right), it completely ignores the motives and is therefore an absolutely false reading of history.
Moving the goalposts. You said “equality;” now you’re saying “authoritarian-left.” You had to change your criteria because your original claim, that Stalin, Mao, et al are in the “equality” camp, was false.
To wit, Stalin as supremacist/nationalist, not egalitarian: “Of those who starved (in the 1930s famine), the 3.3 million or so inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine who died in 1932 and 1933 were victims of a deliberate killing policy related to nationality.” (Source.)
Interesting you brought up pretzels in another post further up and this post where you try to twist “authoritarianism” as being about equality. Your pretzels are making me thirsty. Authoritarians do come from all political stripes, but all of them are about subjugating “lesser people” to their wills. That is all about supremacy.
“Moving the goalposts.”
No, what I’m saying is that people rise to power in the name of “equality” for all while ultimately misusing that power (through violence, etc.) and becoming an authoritarian to some (or even most). Big difference.
If you can’t understand that very basic point, you lose.
I understand your “very basic point” isn’t one. It doesn’t seem that you know enough about how these autocrats rose to power.
“To wit, Stalin as supremacist/nationalist, not egalitarian:”
You can say what you like, but Stalin had far, far more in common ideologically with today’s Antifa than with the Hitler of the past or the modern neo-Nazis.
That’s the salient point here.
Red herring. One doesn’t have to be Hitlerian or neo-Nazi to fall into the “supremacy” camp. The Hutus of Rwanda in 1994 come to mind.
“Red herring.”
No, just you refusing to acknowledge – or being in outright denial of – the existence of authoritarian (and ultimately violent and hateful) manifestations of leftist/progressive ideology and their atrocities throughout history, oftentimes in the name of “equality.”
You’re too stubborn and blind to facts to debate with, so I have nothing more to say to you on the matter. Good day.
You haven’t used facts. You’ve made numerous claims and moved plenty of goalposts, but you haven’t provided any facts. You claim Stalin’s regime ruled in the name of “equality,” ignoring that its actions resembled those of right-wing autocracies like the Nazis. (And both believed in nationalizing large parts of the economy.)
You are welcome to bring facts at some point here, but if you can only argue by insulting me, then I will ask you not to return.
“You haven’t used facts. You’ve made numerous claims and moved plenty of goalposts, but you haven’t provided any facts.”
History (and the facts) speaks for itself. Stalin/Mao/Guevara/Castro/etc. are (or were) cut from the exact same cloth as the Antifa and related militant leftist types who preach egalitarianism and “equality” but ultimately want to force their agenda through oppression, violence, and even death, if necessary.
Absolutely no goalpost moving. There’s only so much I can do to fill in the gaps of your ideological blindness, faux intelligence, and ultimately abject ignorance of not only history but the motivations/actions of modern political actors.
And let me guess, ban coming in 3….2…1….
“You are welcome to bring facts at some point here, but if you can only argue by insulting me, then I will ask you not to return.”
And what “facts” have you brought, other than to just simply state an “opinion” that you think Stalin et al have more in common with right-wing authoritarians than anything left-wing/progressive.
It’s an intentional misreading of history and political motivations, for who knows why, but presumably ideological blindness.
Your assertions of the political make-up of Stalin, Mao, and others have no validity as “facts.” Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way, and you sure as hell don’t just get to preach to me about how I need to “bring the facts” when you are hardly accomplishing that yourself.
Except that I did – citing Stalin’s mass murder of Ukrainians during the 1930s on ethnic grounds, not ideological ones. We could also discuss Mao’s zhonghua minzu doctrine, stirring up hatred of the Han people among China’s numerous other minorities, itself comparable to the ethnic hatred at the heart of the Rwandan genocide.
Also, you’ve now invoked the burden of proof fallacy. You have made the claim – opposed by many here – that … I actually can’t keep track, because you’ve changed it so many times, but you seem to want to say that the so-called “antifa” are as bad as the neo-Nazis running around hurting and killing people. You haven’t supported the claim with any evidence at all; you tried to make a broader historical argument, but failed to back that up with any evidence. When you arrive here, make a wild claim, and don’t back it up with evidence, you don’t get to just demand that others provide evidence that you’re wrong. You especially don’t get to do that when the person running the site tells that you don’t get to do it.
“Interesting you brought up pretzels in another post further up and this post where you try to twist “authoritarianism” as being about equality. ”
Again, as I said to keith, it’s about USING “equality” while being authoritarian, not actually being egalitarian.
You misrepresent what I said further up. I’ll repeat, with ALL-CAPS, so that you can see the point.
“Far more lives have been lost IN THE NAME OF“equality” than…”
You’re both being intentionally obtuse here. The point is that the modern Antifa and other militant leftist groups, both present and past (like Stalin et al) have almost always used “equality” as some kind of platform to woo the masses about all the “good” they’re capable of doing for society. Then come the atrocities. That’s what makes them almost seem more worrisome than the supremacists, etc. who at least say up front who they hate and intend violence towards.
I have to be honest, “Wild Donkey,” I really have no idea what point you’re actually trying to make. Are there people who claimed to be leftists, and then committed horrible acts of violence? Of course there are. But you seem to be unwilling to recognize that actions matter more than words, and that the authoritarian behavior of a Stalin or a Chavez or a Pinochet or a Mao is more significant than their words, and is inherently right-wing in nature.
More significant, however, is that I don’t see how any of these extreme examples are particularly relevant to the issue at hand. There may be some violence-inclined left-wingers in America right now, call them antifa, or the alt-left, or whatever you will. But there are definitely a lot of violence-inclined right-wingers, and they are loud, and they are high-profile, and–most importantly of all–they are being empowered by those who run the U.S. government. Pointing out the existence of violent left-wingers in the past or present does not address the current problem, does not in any way make what Trump is doing ok, and does not make leftists who would dare to call Trump out on his authoritarianism and his racism-enabling into hypocrites.
How is authoritarian behavior “inherently right-wing in nature?”
I do not believe it is. Authoritarians on both the left and the right have sought to impose their view of the *ideal* society on others. However, right-wing authoritarianism in the form of white supremacy has historically taken root in American institutions in a way left-wing authoritarianism never has. Communists were never a significant threat to subjugate from within, but white supremacists truly did just that. This is why false equivalencies (e.g. BLM = KKK) are so offensive to many people.
This is turning into a pissing match over whether left-wing or right-wing authoritarians are worse. It is utterly irrelevant. White supremacists and Nazis have no place in civil society and should be opposed by any decent person, liberal or conservative. Period. That some fringe left-wing authoritarians or anarchists are violent at anti-Nazi rallies does not make Nazis less vile. Is Hitler less vile because Stalin fought with him? What is happening is that a certain fraction of people sympathize with white supremacists, and our President either sympathizes with them as well, or does not want to piss the sympathizers off lest they stay home next time.
“White supremacists and Nazis have no place in civil society and should be opposed by any decent person, liberal or conservative. Period.”
And the problem is, violent left-wing extremists/authoritarians also have no place in civil society and should be opposed by any decent person, liberal or conservative, period. Yet you, keith, and others seem to struggle mightily with publicly criticizing and opposing these factions and instead seem more interested in dog-whistling about “false equivalencies” and using other logical fallacies and inconsistencies.
Just as our president seems incapable and/or unwilling to condemn right-wing/supremacist/nationalist extremism that lends itself to hatred and violence (and is thus an enabler), some of you here seem incapable and/or unwilling to condemn left-wing extremism that lends itself to hatred and violence, making you an enabler as well.
I have no patience for enablers of hatred and violence of any stripe.
Well, Dr. Jack, I have no patience for frauds like yourself.
I have no problem condemning violence on the left. I know little about Antifa politically other than being self-defined as anti-fascism. Otherwise, they seem to be a fringe group of anarcho-communists with no real power or mainstream political support. Whatever. I condemn their use of violence against those exercising their rights to free speech and assembly. I also feel that the use of violence is counterproductive and helps generate some misguided sympathy for the alt-right. Dox the fuck out of them to their employers, socially ostracize them, but do not throw the first punch.
That said, the aftermath of the murder of a peaceful counter-protester–one who was protesting literal Nazis chanting “jews will not replace us”– is not an appropriate time for “both sides are bad.” This was a deliberate attempt to cast groups such as BLM as morally equivalent to Nazis and the KKK. It is as transparent and repugnant now as it was then.
I think the issue you fail to see is that”antifa” is not really an organized group but rather a means to organize like minded individuals. They are actually the definition of “a few bad apples” when they show up to an event as they are a loose collection of individuals.
This is drastically different than neo-nazi groups, right wing militias, and the KKK, all of whom are organized entities with considerable numbers.
It is also a false narrative to say that people on the left refuse to condemn leftist violence. Every leftist I know has and, since you brought up Stalin, I don’t know a single person who likes Stalin.
BTW, it’s hilarious that you came here too knock Keith as some ultra leftist. Apparently believing in science and facts makes someone a leftist…
Racism, period, has no place in civil society. The idea that someone is superior or inferior to someone else simply based on the color of their skin or where they grew up has got to be the dumbest concept mankind has ever come up with
“…frauds like yourself.”
Funny how sensitive you are to “insults” yet how easily you like to hurl them.
It’s not an insult; you’ve posted here under multiple names to hide your identity. I think it’s time for you to move along now.
So Wild Donkey is Dr. Jack, Mistro, and the other aliases they used last year? Is there a full list of them?
“It’s not an insult; you’ve posted here under multiple names to hide your identity. I think it’s time for you to move along now.”
So the fact I have posted here as “Dr. Jack” (just another nickname…take note of what a male donkey is) and as “Wild Donkey” is some big conspiracy.
I have nothing to hide. Not sure what you’re trying to insinuate there. I also have no trouble moving on from where I’m not welcome.
Seems to me that one of the issues of distinction is whether counter-protesters (i.e., those standing up to the Nazis, KKK and white nationalists) are proactively violent or are simply willing to defend themselves, physically if and when necessary. I think it’s an important distinction. I make no claims as to knowing the true goals of the antifa, but I applaud the counter protesters who are willing to defend themselves when confronted (especially when they are attacked with cars and guns). I have great admiration and respect for the Freedom Riders (mostly religious and pacifist college students, BTW) who suffered great physical harm when demonstrating in Deep South for civil rights. But I don’t think that’s the approach the left should be taking against these goons. I don’t want to see the counter protesters initiating violence, but they should be prepared to take on the Nazis and white-pride crowd.
I heard a great interview on the Steele and Ungar Show with Christian Picciolini, a former white nationalist/supremacist/neo-Nazi. Picciolini made the point that he is unaware of any former white supremacists who changed their views after being punched in the face. Rather, it is interactions with people from the groups that supremacists hate that ultimately cause them to reconsider their beliefs. Seems pretty reasonable, really.
I think it’s great that people go out and (non-violently) protest/counter-protest against these morons wherever they slink out from under their rocks. It’s necessary. But I think it’s fair to say these protests/counter-protests aren’t influencing the white nationalists/supremacists/racists.
Here you go: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.840dc235cb46
This is a great example, thank you. It is unclear who the violent “black clad” people are – antifa? anarchists? Troublemakers without any political agenda? I’m surprised the Post identifies them as “antifa” without any supporting evidence; it doesn’t even appear that they spoke to any of the perpetrators at all. This sloppy bit of journalism is what allows people to make the false equivalence claim that there’s just as much violence coming from the left as there is from the right.
Yes, Keith, because clearly they were right wing KKK Nazis…
Or maybe they are just shit-starters, with no political affiliation to anyone or anything, but people want to attach them to a political group just because.
Actually, the signs they were carrying and the logos on the shields give them away.
“I’m surprised the Post identifies them as “antifa” without any supporting evidence”
Yet you’re not surprised (or bothered…or whatever) when all those assembled protesting the removal of a statue commemorating the Confederacy (or its soldiers) or are out promoting any other right-leaning cause are all smeared as being affiliated with the KKK/Nazi-sympathizers without any supporting evidence.
Your double-standards are a joke.
The swastikas, hoods, “Jews will not replace us” chants, those are all pretty good evidence.
You’re done here, Dr. Jack. I gave you more rope than you deserved.
You’ll all be surprised to hear that Bill/Dr. Jack responded with childish name-calling.
“Or maybe they are just shit-starters, with no political affiliation to anyone or anything, but people want to attach them to a political group just because.”
And maybe, just maybe, the same could be said for many of those extreme right-wing nuts. The vast majority of polite society views them as just troublemakers and “shit-starters” and see them as being out on the fringes disconnected from pretty much everyone else, yet some people (*cough* *cough* though I don’t know WHO that might be) want to attach them to a political group (usually mainstream conservatives or libertarians….because???
Antifa is taken pretty seriously by DHS, fwiw, as a domestic terrorist threat
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235