I had two ESPN+ posts this week, my first mock draft of 2019 and a draft scouting post on some prospects at Vanderbilt and Louisville. I also held a Klawchat on Thursday.
At Paste, I reviewed Noctiluca, a fun, light, dice-drafting game from the designer of Raiders of the North Sea. My daughter and I have really enjoyed this one.
Before I get to the regular links, here’s a GoFundMe that might be of interest to many of you. Luis Vasquez, a former Mets farmhand, developed bone cancer in his leg last year; he has survived it, but surgery to replace his knee and tibia has probably ended his career. Jen Wolf, who worked with Luis while she was with the Mets the last few years, has set up a GoFundMe page to help Vasquez move into a safer house in the Dominican Republic, as his family’s current home is falling apart and lacks electricity or indoor plumbing.
And now, the links…
- Longreads first: A prominent case of gang rape in Spain that resulted in the five perpetrators only receiving convictions on lesser charges fueled massive nationwide protests – and into a position of power.
- This New Yorker longread from a few weeks ago looks at the drive to automate produce picking, which has implications for the kind of food we eat, when we can buy it, how nutritious it is, and for the demand for unskilled laborers.
- VICE explains how AirPods are an environmental tragedy; they’re expensive, don’t last long, and then they’re just trash.
- You’ve heard plenty about the Alabama bill that would effectively criminalize abortions in the state; it would also criminalize false rape allegations in a way that if you accuse someone of rape and they’re acquitted, you have then committed a crime. Between this and Georgia’s attempt to ban abortion last week, the American South is no country for women.
- Meanwhile, Republicans in Ohio, a state with three big cities and apparently Alabama around them, are pushing a bill to ban private insurance from covering abortions and that might also ban coverage of birth control. Theocracy still has its adherents.
- The Daily Beast profiles a Hezbollah sleeper agent busted in the US for selling counterfeit Uggs.
- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has descended into denialism – and has made it a career. His sister and nephew write about how he’s dangerously wrong on vaccines.
- Seth Meyers had Meghan McCain on his show and pushed back on her hypocritical comments against Rep. Ilhan Omar.
- Republicans across the country are fighting Democrats’ attempts to tighten vaccination laws across the country, yet another example of the GOP aligning itself with anti-science interests.
- The city of San Francisco has subpoenaed a doctor suspected of granting fake medical exemptions to parents seeking to avoid vaccinating their children.
- Bioethicist Art Caplan wrote about a framework for legal liability for parents who refuse to vaccinate in a Harvard Law blog post in 2013.
- Germany’s health minister proposed fining non-vaccinating parents $2700 to further discourage refusers.
- The FDA is moving to increase regulations of supplements, a move that is more than overdue given the size of the market and the potential for harm to consumers by misleading labels and lack of manufacturing standards.
- Sexual orientation is fluid into our adult years, supported by yet more research led by Virginia Tech scientist Christine Kaestle.
- I’m now very interested in Furious Hours by Casey Cep after reading this review of the book, which covers a possible serial killer and an unwritten book by Harper Lee.
- This NPR piece explains how hospitals cope when an unidentifiable patient arrives — someone without ID who isn’t conscious or isn’t able to identify themselves.
- Nancy Armour writes about the privilege some Cubs fans have shown when defending Addison Russell or the fan who made a racist gesture on camera, saying those of us with that privilege can’t tell other classes that they shouldn’t be offended.
- Why is it news when athletes of color decide not to go to the White House, but it’s not news when white athletes decide to go?
Damn it’s depressing how often stories about vaccination are relevant. Thanks for fighting the good fight.
John McCains daughter is the shining example of conflating antisemitism and actions of Israel and related groups. It’s hard to listen to her cause she makes me feel a tiny bit dumber each time she opens her mouth. Being a senators (an awful one at that) daughter isn’t a reason to have a presence in public life. John McCain’s daughter foments hatred.
McCain’s longstanding ability to turn herself into the victim in any situation is pretty remarkable. It must be exhausting shutting down every debate first with rage and then tears. The entire act is getting pretty tiresome. Why she is repeatedly given a platform for it is a mystery to me.
“those of us with that privilege can’t tell other classes that they shouldn’t be offended.”
It works both ways. Yes, people (with privilege, or even without) shouldn’t be telling someone else they “shouldn’t be offended” by something. But people also need to refrain from telling others what they “should be offended” by.
Which, coincidentally, seems to answer the question raised in the next (and last) link by Jemele Hill. “Black” and “brown” athletes are free to feel offended by Trump and avoid going to the White House for whatever reason. Similarly, white athletes who decide to go need not be told how offended they should be, whether or not they should even be going, or that they “owe” anyone else an explanation for their actions.
“whether or not they should even be going,”
That’s where you err, in my opinion. If, for example, white athletes were attending a white nationalist rally, or a neo-Nazi event, of course we would ask them to justify it – and expect an explanation. It feels like you’re making a corollary to ‘reverse racism’ arguments here.
As for your second post, if you don’t see the evidence in media coverage of players opting out of WH visits, I think that’s your own cognitive bias at work: When players don’t go, they are asked why not, and when they do go, they are seldom if ever asked why.
“If, for example, white athletes were attending a white nationalist rally, or a neo-Nazi event”
And this is where you err, in my humble opinion. While I realize you’re just using an example for illustrative purposes, it has the whiff of a straw man.
First off, there’s a seemingly apparent and very explicit reason(s) white nationalists and neo-Nazis are rallying, and secondly, those reasons carry a specific and direct negative connotation for black and brown people that have historically (well, more modern history, at least) is generally frowned upon by a broad swath of the population.
On the other hand, sports teams visiting the White House following a championship has mostly been a non-controversy (until recently) and generally carried a neutral connotation, at worst. Ostensibly, the reason behind it is to “reward” the accomplishments and success of that team by providing a tour of the White House grounds and whatever comes with it.
Put simply, you can’t compare the two based on historical precedent. Now, I suspect this is where you could step in and toss a little “argumentum ad antiquitatem” my way. Let me just say that I’m hardly naive to the controversial nature of the current President and how his actions and behavior can easily be perceived as something of a paradigm shift relative to past Presidents. That said, it’s a super-charged partisan atmosphere where seemingly a very large share of the population wants to make a political statement out of everything. And as such, it’s challenging, if not impossible sometimes, to discern where the “principled and authentic stands” give way to hyperbole and over-the-top fear-mongering, especially for the still-sizable portion of the population that is decidedly less partisan and less interested in making political statements of any kind. I just think it’s a bit much to hoist upon these people the weight of everyone else’s political statements and give them the benefit of the doubt if they simply want to keep quietly doing what’s always been done. My 2 cents.
“As for your second post, if you don’t see the evidence in media coverage of players opting out of WH visits,”
I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I see the evidence. I acknowledge that. And you seem to get that in your response. It’s about Jemele’s framing. My whole point was to question her in terms of who that “expectation” is from, because I certainly don’t see it being an expectation from the public at large. It’s definitely a media thing, but rather than just pose the question broadly, she should be directing it specifically at the media, of which she belongs.
Re-reading my 2nd post from yesterday, I acknowledge I didn’t make that point as clearly as intended. My point was to question the evidence that there’s a broader expectation from the public to question why black and brown players to ask why. I certainly see the media doing it, but that’s on them, not “the public.” Jemele’s question was directed very broadly, almost as if to insinuate the public has this expectation as well. I simply don’t think that’s the case.
From Jemele’s article in The Atlantic:
“Black and Hispanic players and coaches are expected to justify their reasons for not going to Trump’s White House.”
Based on what evidence? That’s pure conjecture from jemele as to the level of “expectation.” And expectation from whom? It’s certainly not the majority of people, or “average American.” I’d wager that most don’t give two number twos. If anything, it’s a media/sports media fixation, which she belongs to. I’d say she needs to direct that question towards her peers in sports media. It’s not presented in a way to promote healthy dialogue.