Stick to baseball, 10/7/23.

I’ve had one post up for subscribers to the Athletic since the last roundup, with my hypothetical postseason awards ballots for 2023. I do have another story filed for Sunday, so keep an eye skinned for that.

Over at Paste, I reviewed Votes for Women, a (mostly) two-player, asymmetrical game about the fight for women’s suffrage. It’s fantastic, and I also love that this review went up the week that Glynis Johns turned 100.

On the Keith Law Show this week, my guest was MLB’s Sarah Langs, talking about the season that was, who she would vote for in the various awards, and what excited her about this year’s playoff teams. You can listen and subscribe via iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.

And now, the links…

Comments

  1. Regarding the piece on Rumble and Stew Peters –

    Wow. Is his behavior covered by the first amendment? Because, that sort of lunacy and dangerous commentary seems to me like it should be criminal. I suppose he probably gets around the laws against inciting violence by claiming that he is merely calling for their prosecution and asserting that he believes their crimes should be considered capital offenses, but still… what a severely deranged lunatic.

    Regarding the piece entitled, “Capitalists will let you drown”, I haven’t read the link yet (I will, soon), but I hope the article attacks the corrupt politicians who funnel money away from public services and infrastructure and into the hands of billionaire sports team owners. Because, of course citizens and corporations are going to try to get free stuff. It is the government’s responsibility to not give it to them. If I make a ridiculous request to the government to subsidize a sports business venture, and the government agrees, people should be angry at the government for doing it, not at me for asking for it. (This is a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. I possess no wealth or business ventures.)

    • The article is part “hit” and part “miss”. It blames capitalists for wanting to steer things in their favor. As though that’s something new and unexpected ??

      it also blames (partly, but not entirely) the politicians who allow this to happen. 100% of the blame is with the politicians. We did not elect billionaire capitalists to government positions. We elected politicians, with the expectation they would serve the public needs. If these politicians are corrupt and misappropriating funds toward wealthy private citizens, they need to be removed from office and prosecuted. When billionaire private citizens ask the government for favors, it is the government’s responsibility to say “no”.

      As for the NYC specifics of the article: I grew up in NYC during the high-crime era of the Dinkins administration. (Dinkins was unfairly blamed for the problems, and Guiliani was incorrectly credited with solving the problems). It is sad to read about Mayor Adams. He seems horrible. The friends and family I still have in NYC were unhappy with him from the start of his administration.

      There seems to be a shortage of good politicnas out there.

    • Our system allows those with money to dictate policy through financial support of political candidates, a situation exacerbated by the Citizens United decision and the refusal of one party to shine a light on dark money. It’s a situation that calls for greater regulation of the role of money in our political system.

    • Yes, it’s protected by the First Amendment against criminal charges. It’s not an “actionable” threat, by my limited understanding of the law. It’s not protected from consequences like Twitter or Rumble suspending his account.

    • Well, I suppose this is a good start:

      Update 9/29/23: Following the publication of this article, Peters’ X post and Rumble segment were removed.

      But, that does not mean that X has suspended his account, which is unfortunate.

      __________________

      “Our system allows those with money to dictate policy through financial support of political candidates, a situation exacerbated by the Citizens United decision and the refusal of one party to shine a light on dark money.”

      This system sucks. What can be done about it? The two major parties seem to each have approximately 50% support, which means one party can stagnate attempts to change a problematic situation.

  2. Adam Poling

    I’d never heard of Mr. Collins until posters I follow on bluesky shared his work. I thought it disgusting when another news organization made his struggle with depression more public. But, he said he hoped that it would lead to others getting help.

  3. Brian in NoVA

    Frank, the first thing you can do is elect Democrats. The only way change is gonna happen on campaign finance is if the balance of the SC changes dramatically. Right now, you have 6 votes out of 9 to uphold Citizens United and would probably allow for more if a case came before them.

    • I would second this. The Democrats have a history of supporting some sort of campaign finance reform, and in general they oppose Citizens United. The Republicans oppose all campaign finance reform right now, including voting down a bill that would have required dark-money groups to disclose their funders. Third-party candidates would have a much better chance in a world where campaign financing was regulated and more transparent.

    • Brian in NoVA

      The scary part is the SC could get worse if Trump or any other Republican is elected. This guy would be one of the major front runners for any vacancy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Ho

    • That’s it? Elect democrats?

      Two questions:

      1) What can or should I do if I live in a state that already elects democrats? (I’m definitely not moving to Utah or Montana to try to change it from a red state to a blue state.)

      2) Exactly what offices need to be held by democrats for this screwed up situation to change? Do we simply need a democrat in the white house, a democrat majority in the house, and a democrat senate in the senate? Or do we need democrats elected to all state and local offices as well? Governor, mayors of each city, etc?

      I suppose I am looking for a more concrete answer. “This situation will change if specifically this situation occurs: _______________________.”

      Historically, it looks like there has been a democrat president and democratic control of both the house and senate during the following periods:

      2009-2011
      1993-1995
      1977-1981
      1961-1969

      And most of 1933-1953 (All years except 1947-1949, a period with some bizarre outlier numbers).

      Most of this is before my time. During those periods, was there significant progress toward a more effective and less dark-money-fueled system of government?

    • Brian in NoVA

      Frank, we need a Democrat in the White House and a majority in the Senate to start putting in judges who aren’t Federalist Society hacks at all levels of the federal court system and flip the balance. That’s your starting point. The Federalist Society with the help of McConnell, Trump, and Bush among others have stacked the courts heavily in the favor of conservatives and their special interest “friends”. Let’s say you passed a clean repeal of Citizens United and other campaign finance regulations. Here’s the problem, you now have to go to a majority conservative court. We already know how a few justices would react. Thomas, Alito, and Roberts believe money equals speech and can’t be regulated for the purposes of an election. Sotomayor on the other hand was a dissenter (along with the other 3 liberals at the time). Now it’s not hard to extrapolate that any repeal or similar campaign finance regulation would get killed 6-3 along ideological lines especially since Korsuch and Roberts are very similar on these types of cases. Bottom line is everything sucks because one of the 3 branches is utterly corrupt and they’re the hardest to fix in the short term.

    • I agree that the Supreme court is a problem. Alito is loathsome. How is Thomas still on the Bench ??? It seems that no matter how much damaging information comes to light about Thomas, very few people are actually calling for his resignation from the court.

      Do the democrats not have a majority in the senate right now? At least, a voting majority, since the 3 independents seem to be aligned with the democrats?

      Looking at a map of senators by state, nearly all of the states that have two GOP senators are deep red states that are unlikely to elect a democrat to the senate. Montana has a democrat senator, which is somewhat surprising. I also would have thought Wisconsin would have two democrats but that is not the case.

      Side note – looking over the list of senators – damn, a lot of them are old. Perhaps there will be a large number of upcoming retirements.

      I hear what you and Keith are saying, I am just not sure I see the actual path to accomplishing it.

      I know this is a silly hypothetical, but I wish individual citizens could just vote directly on specific issues, rather than having to choose from one of two major parties, neither of which is a good fit for one’s belief system covering dozens of important issues.

      I’m not sure the situation in this country is fixable. I’ve wanted to live somewhere else for a while. Perhaps I should just focus on that goal.

    • Brian in NoVA

      Yes the Dems do have a Senate majority but you also need a vacancy (I don’t see Alito or Thomas resigning when a Democrat is President) or the Dems to play hard ball and pack the court. Biden’s too much of an institutionalist to do it and I doubt you’d even have 40 votes in the Senate to do it much less 50. A lot of people are calling for Thomas’s resignation. The problem is that he has no incentive to do so and Roberts is whistling past the graveyard pretending what Thomas and Alito are doing is normal or okay (just for reference, any judge on the lower levels caught doing what we know Thomas has done would be sanctioned and probably removed). Think about it this way, the Federalist Society was formed in 1982 and they finally got their bullet proof no moderates allowed supermajority in 2020. They also got lucky with timing. RBG should’ve retired in 2013 or 2014 and didn’t. Then the GOP was lucky to have the Senate in 2016 when Scalia died and McConnell gambled on blocking any Obama nominee. It worked as we all know. Then RBG does die in 2020 and Trump had a GOP Senate to fill her vacancy at a record clip. That’s how long it might take to dig out of this mess if at all. Sadly I agree that we might be past the point of no return when you have one branch of government that is out of control and not just the SC. A lot of the lower circuits aren’t much better and sometimes much worse (cough5thcircuitcough).