Stick to baseball, 11/18/23.

I offered my opinions of the Aaron Bummer and Cal Quantrill trades for subscribers to the Athletic. That Jake Bauers trade really didn’t move the needle, but I’ll probably include a thought or two on the Vidal Bruján trade when we get another one so I can include it in a longer column.

On my podcast this week, I spoke with film critic Matt Singer about his new book Opposable Thumbs: How Siskel & Ebert Changed Movies Forever. You can listen and subscribe via iTunes, Spotify, amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I appeared on Seattle’s 710 AM to discuss the Mariners’ possible offseason moves and the challenge of competing in the AL West in 2024.

My free email newsletter has returned, as I sent out a fresh edition last night, my second one this month.

And now, the links…

Comments

  1. Keith – not a grammar nitpick here – I’m unsure exactly what this sentence is intended to say:

    “A school in Iowa had to pay for increased security after a single teacher there posted a joke that Chaya Raichik, who posts as “LibsOfTikTok,” then shared to her 2.6 million followers with a tag identifying the school district.”

    Was there supposed to be some additional part of the sentence after the parenthetical “…who posts as ‘LibsOfTikTok’… ?

    • No, I think it’s correct. Raichik shared the teacher’s joke to her 2.6 million followers and she tagged the Des Moines school district because, I assume, she wanted people to harass and threaten them.

    • Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification. On my first read, I thought the sentence was trying to say that Chaya Raichik (whoever that is) did something and THEN did something else.

      It’s still a busy and confusing sentence, but I understand now:

      A teacher at an Iowa school posted a (presumably innocuous) joke.
      A TikTok user who apparently objected to the joke decided to post the joke on TikTok while also tagging the school district, in an apparent attempt to compel people to harass the teacher and/or the district.
      As a result, the school had to pay for increased security.

      The somewhat abrupt insertion of “Chaya Raichik” into the middle of the sentence had me wondering whether I am supposed to know who that is. (I don’t.)

      I suppose I’ll check out tghe actual story, since I’m still unclear on some aspects of this situation.

    • Okay, I read the story.

      Chaya Raichik is a horrible person. It’s a sad state of affairs that someone can (apparently legally) incite others to violence and then be proud of that fact.

      That said – what an idiotic attempt at a joke by the teacher. Who was the joke aimed at? The people who understood the joke probably were not the target of the joke. And the people who were the target of the joke probably would be likely to miss the irony and sarcasm in the joke. Or, intentionally take it out of context and pretend it was not a joke just to rile up other people who are too stupid to know the difference.

    • This is who Chaya Raichik is.

      As for the joke, I probably wouldn’t have posted that on social media, but I’m not interested in blaming the victim here. That teacher’s actions did not merit threats of violence against their school.

    • Agreed on both counts. I did not mean to make it seem as though I was blaming the victim; merely pointing out I wouldn’t have posted the joke on social media.

      Raichik’s actions are unacceptable, and even worse for the fact that she had to know it was a joke and yet exploited it for ill-intent anyway.

    • Brian in NoVA

      Raichik is awful in general. She knows what she’s doing and she was at the Capitol on January 6. Her posing with the cover of USA Today was utterly repugnant given what the story detailed about her followers. She can pretend she’s only sharing information about the left all she wants but it’s not exactly a coincidence that a lot of the people or organizations she highlights get terrorist and death threats. She’s screaming fire in a crowded movie theater repeatedly and is shocked or happy about the collateral damage. At some point, you lose the benefit of the doubt.

  2. The Murfreesboro story is tough to follow. It seems like they didn’t just pass the ordinance. It had been on the books since 1949 and no one challenged it. Until this year, when people started using the existing language (which specified “homosexuality” among other public displays of prurient interest, which as of late this week, the ACLU had successfully gotten struck from the ordinance. To me it’s a slightly different story than if they had just passed it this year; and no matter what, it’s a good reminder to pay attention to local politics.

  3. Is there a named internet or legal correlation between how forceful the threat of a lawsuit is described before filing and it’s likelihood of success or even likelihood of ever being filed? Just thinking about “thermonuclear lawsuits”.

    I am definitely living the first born daughter taking care of their parents problem through my wife. Her parents live with us and it really hasn’t been an issue until recently. It has coincided with her mom’s mental sharpness declining, to the point she’s almost treating my wife like she’s 16 again, constantly questioning why she does things a certain way or my wife going out to meet friends. Her mom doesn’t do it when I’m within earshot, which might be cultural since I’m not Filipino/Asian.

  4. Breaking news: It’s rough in society to be a rich white billionaire:

    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38957988/jim-irsay-cites-status-white-billionaire-2014-arrest

    Maybe we can start a goFundMe campaign for this downtrodden, oppressed class.