For subscribers to the Athletic, here’s an index to my draft coverage from this past week:
- My pick-by-pick analysis for the first 39 selections
- My AL team draft recaps
- My NL team draft recaps
- My post-draft Q&A
- My final mock draft, if you’re curious
I also recapped the Futures Game and wrote a brief note on the call-up of Pirates’ right-hander Quinn Priester.
I had Joe Sheehan back on the podcast last week, before the draft, and then skipped this week to write all that stuff above. You can listen & subscribe via iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I’m a little pressed for time so let’s get to the links:
- Longreads first: Well, not quite a longread, but here’s the GQ article on David Zaslav that he pressured the publication to pull after it was published online.
- ProPublica reports on how the EPA has banned the pesticide chlorpyrifos for food crops in the U.S. but worked against a global ban on the chemical.
- Unfortunately, ProPublica continues to seriously screw up its coverage of the research on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Did an elite private school in New York City drive a student to suicide by asking him to leave?
- Yet another story of the increasing harm from online romance scams, this time about how they’re driving victims to attempt suicide.
- Elie Mystal argues that SCOTUS’s affirmative action ruling kicks the door open to Jim Crow-style bigotry.
- Even before RFK Jr. revealed himself as an antisemite and Sinophobe, he was pushing an old anti-vaccine lie about “saline placebos” as part of his denialist messaging.
- Reason asks why so many soi-disant libertarians are backing RFK Jr.
- Giant hog farms are an environmental and animal-welfare disaster. They also make horrendous neighbors, but recent laws and court rulings have favored these factory farms over individual homeowners’ rights.
- This is from last August but a Pew Research survey found American right-wingers are absolutely more insane in their climate change denial than even right-wingers in other countries. Meanwhile, the planet may be hitting the climate change point of no return.
- Half the police force in Golden Valley, Minnesota, quit after the town hired a Black police chief. Crime went down.
- Florida’s various laws repressing educator speech may already be driving a brain drain out of the state.
- And the state of Florida is also going after voter registration groups, threatening them with thousands of dollars in fines for helping citizens exercise their constitutional right.
- Moms for Liberty is an extremist group and Republican politicians are lining up to court their support.
- Elon helped spread a conspiracy theory that claimed an innocent 22-year-old college student was a federal agent posing as a neo-Nazi to infiltrate hate groups.
- Elon appears to be accelerating the enshittification of Twitter.
- Rep. Clay Higgins (LA-R) suggested that the government close public libraries and replace them with “church owned” libraries instead.
- Sen. Josh Hawley (MO-R) shared a quote that he claimed was from Patrick Henry but actually came from a virulently antisemitic magazine.
- The WGA strikers may have been wobbling, but an anonymous comment from a studio exec seems have to given their strike new energy.
- A US labor judge ruled that Starbucks illegally shut down a unionized store in Ithaca, New York, and ordered the company to reopen it.
- A Muslim student from a Delaware high school was arrested outside his graduation ceremony by University of Delaware police.
- As Substack and other sites become festering holes of homophobia and transphobia, Medium came out with a statement in support of LGBTQ+ rights.
- Conservative activists didn’t stop at abortion – now they’re targeting birth control.
- Conservative activists didn’t stop at trans kids – now they’re trying to ban gender-affirming care for adults.
- Archaeologists think they’ve found the hidden entrance to what the Zapotec civilization believed was a path to the underworld. Nobody needs another Indiana Jones film, thanks.
- India has a large sugar industry, and now a native rum industry is emerging by distilling better-quality spirits and exploring the liquor’s flavor profiles.
- The ice in your cocktail has a significant cost in climate impact, so some bartenders and cocktail bars are trying to reduce its use and waste.
- GQ did actually publish a fascinating look at one of the world’s most prolific and weirdest art thieves.
- Jen Ramos Eisen wrote about what it was like to be a survivor of intimate-partner abuse at Domingo Germán’s perfect game.
- Kevin Johnson wrote why he, as a Black man, has chosen not to review Morgan Wallen’s concerts in St. Louis given Wallen’s past, free use of the n-word.
- Know a student affected by book bans? They can sign up for free to get access to a huge library of such titles via the Seattle Public Library.
A hair salon in Traverse City (among others) is already to use the exception that the SC created out of thin air with 303 Creative. As Mystal hammers home, that case (along with the student loan case) are the definition of judicial activism. https://www.bridgemi.com/business-watch/traverse-city-salon-banning-trans-clients-wont-be-last-business-battle#:~:text=The%20Studio%208%20Hair%20Lab,its%20page%20amid%20public%20backlash.
I cannot fathom why Libertarians would support RFK Jr. I certainly do not. But, Libertarians in large part seem to have forgotten or stopped caring about the core tenets of Libertarian philosophy. It seems that an extreme group of phony Libertarians has become more prominent, resulting in a misunderstanding of what actual Libertarianism should be about.
Why on earth would anyone give any credibility to people who stand by the thoroughly discredited Andrew Wakefield?
Real curious as to when these true libertarians existed and what the substantive differences are between then and now
@Mike
I have posted answers to similar questions in the past, and no one who had prompted such answers has ever replied with a follow-up post.
My perception as a result of these experiences is that some people merely wish to dismiss Libertarian philosophy altogether and that the question is not actually a genuine question seeking a genuine answer.
(I am not saying you are such a person nor am I saying that is your intent here.)
I’ll try to write more later today if you are interested (which I hope you are). Right now, I need to get some errands done.
I’ll be up front and say that my inquiry was partially sarcastic as I don’t think there is a good/satisfactory answer to my question. At the same time I am still genuinely interested in your answer. So your call.
“I’ll be up front and say that my inquiry was partially sarcastic as I don’t think there is a good/satisfactory answer to my question”
Well, gosh. Thanks for being “up front” AFTER I pointed out your likely passive-aggressive dismissal of a valid political philosophy. Your statement that you do not think there is a good answer certainly makes me want to spend 20 minutes further informing you on the topic!
Nevertheless, since other people might actually be interested (I do not place much merit in your second sentence in light of your first sentence), I’ll write something up and post it. (When I have some spare time.)
As someone who considered themselves an Ayn Rand-loving libertarian in college (and had a print subscription to Reason), current ‘libertarian’ philosophy is essential stick-it-to-the-libs. They will support any sort of authoritarianism as long as it pisses off liberals or fuels their sense of grievance. I think they like the idea of being in the Libertarian club instead of the Republican one without really having any coherent philosophy. As to what current libertarians believe, I’ll leave that to Frank (I’ve long since become a libby lib, though I still strongly support civil liberties and am not anti-capitalist).
@FrankJones Look, all of us exist in the world and thus observe actually existing libertarianism. We then develop an impression of what it is and pass judgment on our perception of the ideology based on that. Given that this ideology is often accompanied by calls for austerity, hyper-individualism, and outright crankery, you have to understand that many people’s judgments will be negative. More generally, if you can’t tolerate mild dissent towards even the notion that your ideology is less than valid, then you don’t really have beliefs you have dogma.
Couldn’t help but think of this when I saw the Reason headline: https://www.theonion.com/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock-1819583529
RFK Jr has a very appealing thing to him: he has a concern that big money corrupts everything. That’s probably directionally correct, what he does with that concern is insanity.
I suspect he gets traction for pointing to the influence of money (other candidates wouldn’t dare) and for his last name. He has no other redeemable qualities as far as I can tell. He seems like a shitbag in his personal life too. Kennedy through and through.
We should stop talking about RFK and start talking about West. That dude is awesome
Brian nailed it.
If his last name was “Smith” or “Johnson”, none of us would likely have ever heard of him, but, he’s a Kennedy so he gets to air his POV.
& yes, his big $$ corrupts everything angle has appeal..Hell, I’ll admit even I agree with some of his views on the military & all it’s spending that could be used elsewhere.
I had a relative that was sending me his views on that & I kept telling him that “This sounds good, but, this guy is a lunatic. Total anti-vaxxer..not just COVID, but, even measles, chicken pox, etc. He would set preventive & mental health in our country back 20 years.”
Thankfully the story Keith mentioned got him off that train & to realize what a dangerous guy RFK is.
Yep, this is exactly correct. RFK is the latest in a long line of candidates (including Trump) with a superficial critique of capital that’s revealed to be unserious once you spend five minutes digging into it. Even the part he should be most invested in (revealing the plots behind his father/uncle’s murders) seems shockingly half-baked when you see messaging like this: https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1655672647852630023?s=20
The ironic thing is both RFK Jr and Trump like to obfuscate the fact that they have both benefitted fantastically, and continue to benefit, from large amounts of money/power. It’s almost like they like to throw stones at the glass house of opulence by day only to go sleep in it at night.
From https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/robert-f-kennedy-jr-2024-presidential-campaign-democratic-primary.html:
“As a journalist who has been told for decades that my empathy for the female candidates I often cover is probably overemotional and built too strongly on personal identification, let me just tell you that you should never stand between a white male political journalist over the age of 40 and his feelings about the Kennedys.”
Cornel West is a renowned philosopher, social critic, and an engaging speaker, but his recent suggestion that Ukraine cede territory to Russia in the hopes it will end hostilities is breathtakingly naïve. Beyond the fact that approach is wildly unpopular with the Ukrainian population and government, any moral issues surrounding the provision of additional weapons, including cluster munitions, are miniscule compared to the moral issue of emboldening dictators like Putin and Xi.
That he believes surrendering territory is some sort of endgame suggests West hasn’t read some of Putin’s own recent public writing in which he insisted Ukraine is not even a sovereign country. At this point it seems clear that Putin is more likely to be aggressive when confronted with weakness than strength. He has repeatedly invoked “red lines” about individual weapon systems and when they were crossed done absolutely nothing in response to their deployment. Conversely, when he was confronted with the uprising of PMC Wagner he vacillated and was conciliatory.
@Mat Ji How else do you propose to bring an end to the war? How do you know negotiations are unpopular with the Ukrainian population? How does treating Putin as the head of state that he is “emboldening” him?
Mike, The term for what you’re proposing is “appeasement,” and it has a success rate of 0%, with giving Hitler the Sudetenland probably the most notable failure of this policy. If you give a bully, terrorist, or dictator what he wants to get him to stop doing the thing he’s doing, he’ll simply learn that it worked and do it again. It’s analogous to positive reinforcement in parenting.
@ Mike, the simple solution for the end of the war is for Russia to end its attempted invasion of a sovereign nation in Ukraine. Also this notion that letting Putin have Ukraine will slow him down is pure naivete. He has made every indication that he would go after the Baltic states next.
@mike
I do not want to misquote you here so please correct me if I am misunderstanding the implications of your post.
Are you suggesting that when a powerful country illegally invades another country and starts a war of territorial aggression, the invaded country should just cede territory to “end the war”?
I believe that sets a very bad and dangerous precedent. I am pretty sure that would be a disastrous policy in the long run.
As to your second question – Have you read any interviews or articles supporting the assertion that Ukranian people wish to cede territory to Russia? I have not read or heard of any such articles or interviews. Even if Mat if making an assumption, it’s a valid assumption, and the onus of proof should be on anyone asserting the contrary opinion. Generally speaking, I have not seen many instances of a country saying it wishes to cede territory to an aggressive neighbor illegally attempting to annex territory.
Regarding your third question: Are you even being serious with that question? Where did anyone say that “treating Putin like the head of state that he is” would be emboldening him? What Mat said is that ceding territory to Putin in an attempt to appease him would be emboldening him. I am not sure how you turned Mat’s words into the bizarre straw man you created out of nowhere.
@everyone I appreciate the outpouring of concern but I’m really just asking some pretty basic questions here that virtually everyone left/right/center outside of the US/NATO core is going to have relatively similar thinking on. I also don’t think it’s particularly great that Putin/Russia invaded Ukraine (it’s very bad actually!), but it happened, and should be brought to a close as soon as possible. Some specific thoughts:
1. Putin is a bog-standard right-winger. He is not Hitler and analogizing as such is not helpful (and is at least mildly disrespectful to the victims of the most singular monster in modern history). Furthermore, do y’all really think a military that’s put up a mediocre showing in Ukraine and has dealt with the Wagner stuff and other defections is going to start invading a bunch of other countries? Especially NATO countries that would likely guarantee Article 5 and with it WWIII?
2. Analogizing foreign relations to interpersonal relations is also not useful. Putin is not a “bully” he is a capitalist head of state who chose an unfortunately aggressive course of action to try to achieve his goals. Furthermore if you treat him as you would a bully, it might have a very different effect.
3. “the simple solution for the end of the war is for Russia to end its attempted invasion” Yes but how do you work to bring about that? Thinking they’re just going to have a change of heart and leave is magical thinking. Do you want to follow the natsec’s current goal of dragging out the war for years/decades with the primary goal being to weaken Russia, whatever the Ukrainian cost? Do you want to commit NATO/US troops and invite nuclear escalation? Something else? What is the other solution besides diplomacy?
4. Suggesting that diplomacy, the thing that has concluded most every war throughout history, is analogous to “just ceding territory” is not a serious analysis. So yes, you very much misquoted me. More to the point, Mat misquoted West, which is why I did not frame my questions around the straw man of “ceding territory”:
“We must stop the war and war crimes (including cluster bombs used by all parties) and embark on diplomatic talks that should lead to a just peace.”
5. “I believe that sets a very bad and dangerous precedent” Territory changing hands after a war is already the precedent. This happens all the time. Something like a quarter of the US population lives in what used to be Mexico. Doesn’t mean it’s good, but saying it’s unprecedented is wildly ahistorical and detached from the reality of what a conclusion to this war might entail, regardless of whether Ukraine/US/NATO decides to engage in diplomacy.
6. As a leftist, I have done my best to seek out what actual Ukrainian/Russian leftists are saying on the matter. I’ve seen no sentiment other than a desire to end the war, with the acknowledgment this will have to happen through diplomacy rather than endless fighting. Here’s one example: https://www.angryworkers.org/2023/03/05/notes-from-a-meeting-with-comrades-from-the-revolutionary-workers-front-rfu-in-ukraine/
@Mike, Why should diplomacy be on the table? Ukrainians don’t want Russia in charge. By giving Putin anything just for having dreams of reinstalling the USSR, you’ve set the table for the next conflict whether it’s an inevitable rebellion by Ukrainians or a potential invasion of the Baltic states. The last war in this kind of scenario usually sets the table for the next one. If Putin loses a long drawn out battle, he’s gonna fight the next one with a much weaker hand or not at all. This notion that it’s on NATO or Ukraine to play the good cop in this war and be the bigger man isn’t realistic or fair to the sovereign nation that got invaded for no fucking reason at all other than the whims of a dictator who wants to restore the Russian empire to its past glory.
@mike
Okay, if “ceding territory” was a misquote by Mat, what diplomatic solutions do you suggest? You said you want diplomatic solutions to end this war quickly but you have not actually suggested anything. If you do not have an alternative to ceding territory, then you are merely equating “diplomacy” with “ceding territory”.
@Brian Ukraine and Russia had preliminary talks multiple times before the US/UK squashed that in spring 2022. Furthermore the NYT piece from a couple days ago highlighted the growing dissent between the more maximal demands of the US brass and the more practical concerns of at least some Ukrainian leadership. The idea that Ukraine is 100% united and dead set on fighting this war in perpetuity is an invention of the US NatSec state and not consistent with reality, which is that a “long drawn out battle” will have immeasurable costs to the people of Ukraine that they will likely try to ameliorate through means other than fighting.
And this is less relevant to the discussion at hand, but the “no fucking reason” part of your response is odd. The reasons may not be good or moral, and you might not like them, and whatever sliver of truth contained within them may not be flattering to the US/NATO, but there were definitely reasons.
@Frank There are a whole bunch of diplomatic solutions/steps that can be proposed before we get to the point of ceding territory. Here are five for starters: https://www.carlbeijer.com/p/a-five-step-path-to-progress-in-ukraine
@ Mike, I have not personally spoken with every Ukrainian citizen but polling from that bastion of liberalism, the WSJ, suggest that it’s not terribly popular.
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_NORC_Ukraine_Poll_June_2022.pdf
I appreciate this weekly installment of your reflexive contrarianism/trolling.
1. Don’t see any questions in there about diplomacy. Just one about ceding territory, which once again is not what West was suggesting.
2. I’m confused about the “bastion of liberalism” comment. Just because the WSJ is right-leaning doesn’t mean they don’t carry water for the very much bipartisan US NatSec state. Putin and US Republicans may share the similar political goals within their domestic spheres, but they still very much oppose each other w/r/t maintaining/expanding their spheres of influence on the world stage. And more directly, WSJ hasn’t met an opportunity to enrich US arms dealers that it hasn’t supported.
3. Describing “I think we should resolve the war through peaceful means” as contrarianism is silly. There’s a whole world outside of the US NatSec state and NATO, and they don’t see things in same Manichean nature.
@Mike, again the only way it ends peacefully through diplomacy is by Russia agreeing to end the invasion with no strings attached. No other scenario is realistic or feasible for Ukraine and is just delaying the inevitable next war. If Russia pinky swears to not invade Ukraine again provided they don’t join NATO, the only question will be who reneges first.
Once again, “Russia agreeing to end the invasion with no strings attached” is magical thinking (that also ignores everything that happened from 2013-2022 that led to this point). And there is obviously no perfect solution that will guarantee no future conflict, but there are ways to minimize/stave off the chance, and most of those can only be accomplished through diplomacy. But that’s unlikely to happen until either 1) Ukraine distances itself from the US/NATO demands, or 2) your fellow Northern Virginians change their tune.
I would say what has happened to Ukraine makes their flirtation with NATO more likely to continue regardless of how the war ends. The lesson they got was they should’ve joined NATO when Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia did in 2004 but instead honored their end of the loose nukes agreement (and it got them nowhere). There’s a reason that Russia went after them first and not the Baltic states and it’s why Finland joined NATO this year which was unthinkable 5 years ago. Ukraine isn’t kowtowing to US/NATO in the least. They see the US and NATO as the safer bet for their long term survival as a country. The last 5 years have laid the reasons bare. The reality is that Zelensky and the Ukrainians see this as a war for their survival as a country. I don’t think the US and NATO are telling them that. They’re listening to what Putin has said for 20 years and see the writing on the wall.
I’m in favor of defending the sovereignty of Ukraine against Russia’s invasion, but I just want to point out that the political bent of a news organization’s editorial board has nothing to do with the viability of polling commissioned by its news arm. I see this happen a lot where some Democrats will dismiss any poll commissioned by FOX News as if it the questions were written by Sean Hannity, and posed only to FOX News viewers in phone calls from Greg Gutfeld.
Brian in Socal – I suspect my point may not have been clear. I was attempting to point out that seemingly regardless of the political leanings of the organization (in this case a Murdoch owned company), there appears to be a sizable majority of Ukrainians who do not support appeasing Putin through ceding territory. As Keith and others have pointed out, the track record when it comes to appeasement is….not great.
I got your point, but your aside about the Wall Street Journal implied something false about how its polling operation works. That’s all I was saying.