Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Today We Decide the BIG Issues
here on just a bit outside we deal with the tough issues: phish, phillies, and the occasional snarky comment at failblog.
but today, i would like to weigh in on sonua sotomayor's nomination to the supreme court. everyone knows why this is so important. we are about to grant a lifetime appointment to someone on the supreme court, and from what i can tell from the media, this person is either supposed to be either a strict constructionist or a pro-choicer or empathizer-in-chief or something like that. but i want to talk about when her decisions effect something that matters, and by that, i mean sports of course :)
apparently, judge soto (sotomayor is a horrible name to type) has decided on two crucial sports related cases: the 1994 MLB strike and the maurice clarett deal. i don't care that much about clarett and i don't remember how i felt about it (i think i was with clarett), but she sided against clarett. so thumbs down on that.
but, bigger and more importantly, she decided on the 1994 MLB players strike. i was 14 in '94 and i remember being crushed by the strike and i think the general public was against the players for being greedy and canceling the world series. so i guess i was too. but, if you think about it, we (the public) had no idea how much the owners were making. and historically MLB owners have been HORRENDOUS to the players in the league with the reserve clause and all. so, i don't really know how i feel now. i guess today, without looking into the issue further, i would side with the players.
as did judge soto. her decision effectively ended the strike. ESPN has a good write up.
so soto, in the coveted endorsement of just a bit outside, you have it.
but today, i would like to weigh in on sonua sotomayor's nomination to the supreme court. everyone knows why this is so important. we are about to grant a lifetime appointment to someone on the supreme court, and from what i can tell from the media, this person is either supposed to be either a strict constructionist or a pro-choicer or empathizer-in-chief or something like that. but i want to talk about when her decisions effect something that matters, and by that, i mean sports of course :)
apparently, judge soto (sotomayor is a horrible name to type) has decided on two crucial sports related cases: the 1994 MLB strike and the maurice clarett deal. i don't care that much about clarett and i don't remember how i felt about it (i think i was with clarett), but she sided against clarett. so thumbs down on that.
but, bigger and more importantly, she decided on the 1994 MLB players strike. i was 14 in '94 and i remember being crushed by the strike and i think the general public was against the players for being greedy and canceling the world series. so i guess i was too. but, if you think about it, we (the public) had no idea how much the owners were making. and historically MLB owners have been HORRENDOUS to the players in the league with the reserve clause and all. so, i don't really know how i feel now. i guess today, without looking into the issue further, i would side with the players.
as did judge soto. her decision effectively ended the strike. ESPN has a good write up.
so soto, in the coveted endorsement of just a bit outside, you have it.
Time Turns Elastic (first listen)
i will say one thing. the song has ENERGY! thats a good thing. its a bit more round room-y than it is old-school epic, but its a good way to make a statement that the phish from vermont is back.
fenway is a few days away. whoo-daddy!
fenway is a few days away. whoo-daddy!
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Second Letter to the Inquirer
written in response to harold jackson's column this morning.
Oh, OK then. If being "pleasant" is all I need to do these days to get a job at a newspaper, I would like to submit my application for employment. I am a very pleasant individual. This probably bodes well for the future of the industry if all you have to do is be "pleasant" in order to write a column, no matter what your past transgressions are.
In case you need this spelled out for you a little more, those crazy Internet readers such as myself, do not protest to Yoo on ideological grounds. We protest his presence at the Inquirer because, as you wrote yourself in today's column, he was the author of the "torture memos". Let me say that again....he was the author of the "torture memos". He provided legal justification for people to be tortured. Even to say the words "torture memos" does not sit right with me. The fact that we are even having a debate over "torture memos" is something that I never thought we would do in the United States. It makes me sick. You also claim that Yoo's presence at the paper "has not changed our Editorial Board's opinion that torture can never be justified." Really? So to acknowledge this point is OK, but giving a forum to the author of the torture memos doesn't in any way mean that you think Yoo should be rewarded for his complicity in providing legal justification for an act that you believe should never be justified? How on earth does that make sense?
Your complete ignorance on this subject is quite appaling. You seem to want to confuse the issue in your column. Yoo started writing for the Inquirer in 2005, before the presence of the "torture memos" was known. Once those documents were released with Yoo's name all over them, you still thought he would be a good representative for the Inquirer. In a day in age when people are losing their jobs left and right because of issues that are no fault of their own, I'm glad that the man who made one of the worst legal blunders in history still got to keep his job. That is what this is all about. It's not the fault of some blogger (I must say thank you to Will Bunch...here is a guy you can actually learn something from in how newspapers can operate in the digital age) but the fault of the Inquirer to reward someone for committing actions that are against the very moral fiber of this country. Your arrogance in the face of the facts is truly unnerving.
I would also recommend you pick up a copy of Hannah Arendt's "The Banality of Evil". Even people who are "very pleasant" can sometimes do things that are morally indefensible and their pleasantness should not be a way to get let off the hook. John Yoo has no place at the Inquirer. If you are looking for a local to provide commentary on topical legal issues, pick up a yearbook for any area high school. I'm sure there are a number of people out of any class who went on to law school. And I am sure that quite a few of them might be able to provide interesting legal commentary to the paper. And I am positive that you chose the ONLY ONE with a background in justifying torture. Good work. If this speaks to how the Inquirer does its research and reporting then I am sure that the fate of the paper is nothing to worry about.
Oh, OK then. If being "pleasant" is all I need to do these days to get a job at a newspaper, I would like to submit my application for employment. I am a very pleasant individual. This probably bodes well for the future of the industry if all you have to do is be "pleasant" in order to write a column, no matter what your past transgressions are.
In case you need this spelled out for you a little more, those crazy Internet readers such as myself, do not protest to Yoo on ideological grounds. We protest his presence at the Inquirer because, as you wrote yourself in today's column, he was the author of the "torture memos". Let me say that again....he was the author of the "torture memos". He provided legal justification for people to be tortured. Even to say the words "torture memos" does not sit right with me. The fact that we are even having a debate over "torture memos" is something that I never thought we would do in the United States. It makes me sick. You also claim that Yoo's presence at the paper "has not changed our Editorial Board's opinion that torture can never be justified." Really? So to acknowledge this point is OK, but giving a forum to the author of the torture memos doesn't in any way mean that you think Yoo should be rewarded for his complicity in providing legal justification for an act that you believe should never be justified? How on earth does that make sense?
Your complete ignorance on this subject is quite appaling. You seem to want to confuse the issue in your column. Yoo started writing for the Inquirer in 2005, before the presence of the "torture memos" was known. Once those documents were released with Yoo's name all over them, you still thought he would be a good representative for the Inquirer. In a day in age when people are losing their jobs left and right because of issues that are no fault of their own, I'm glad that the man who made one of the worst legal blunders in history still got to keep his job. That is what this is all about. It's not the fault of some blogger (I must say thank you to Will Bunch...here is a guy you can actually learn something from in how newspapers can operate in the digital age) but the fault of the Inquirer to reward someone for committing actions that are against the very moral fiber of this country. Your arrogance in the face of the facts is truly unnerving.
I would also recommend you pick up a copy of Hannah Arendt's "The Banality of Evil". Even people who are "very pleasant" can sometimes do things that are morally indefensible and their pleasantness should not be a way to get let off the hook. John Yoo has no place at the Inquirer. If you are looking for a local to provide commentary on topical legal issues, pick up a yearbook for any area high school. I'm sure there are a number of people out of any class who went on to law school. And I am sure that quite a few of them might be able to provide interesting legal commentary to the paper. And I am positive that you chose the ONLY ONE with a background in justifying torture. Good work. If this speaks to how the Inquirer does its research and reporting then I am sure that the fate of the paper is nothing to worry about.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
How Effing Clutch is CHOOCH?
sure, his career average is somewhere just north of the mendoza line, but this guy hits in the clutch fo'sho!
i remember him having a few clutch hits towards the end of last season.
and he was AMAZING in the world series. he hit .375. he was stellar behind the plate with the way he managed games. and he had the winning hit in game 3, a game i had the honor to attend. as sports illustrated said about his postseason performance:
After a fine rookie season in which he hit .259 with 54 RBIs, Ruiz struggled this year, finishing at .219 and driving in just 31 runs. In the World Series, though, his .375 batting average trailed only Werth's; his 11 total bases trailed only Werth and Howard; and his Game 3 performance, in which he homered in the bottom of the second to give the Phillies a 2-1 lead, and then hit the bottom of the ninth, bases-loaded infield single that won the game at 1:47 a.m., turned the Series in Philadelphia's favor for good.and today, his clutch hit in the bottom of the 9th sent the game into extra innings. sure, the phillies didn't win, but his clutch hitting put them in a position to win the game.
he was my vote for world series MVP. dude is clutch.
Sarah Palin STILL Does Not Understand What the First Amendment Means
since i didn't blog during election season, please consider this my make-up post for all the sarah palin bashing i missed. this is her latest statement regarding the whole miss california broo-ha-ha, which i admitedly have not been following all that much because i really don't give two shits what a contestant for miss california, or any beauty pagent contestant (with the notable exception of that miss teen USA south carolina a few years back) thinks about anything, let alone gay marriage:
now on with the palin bashing. its amazing that this woman was a heartbeat of a heartbeat from being a heartbeat away from the presidency. she clearly has no idea what the first amendment means. to help her out, allow me to reprint the text of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." i would like to invite the erstwhile governor of the great state of alaska to please explain how miss california is being denied her first amendment rights to freedom of speech.
it seems to me that she got herself into hot water because of her first amendment protections, not in spite of it. the first amendment has to do with congress restricting the freedom of speech, not perez hilton. this is the twisted logic of the republican party these days. they clearly have absolutely NO IDEA what the constitution says or means. those parts about due process and protection against cruel and unusual punishment? optional. equal protection of the laws? for everyone but the gays. that part in the preamble that talks about providing for the general welfare? clearly not universal health care, but the part in the preamble about providing for the common defense? that part is all that matters.
this isn't the first time palin has used some weak-ass first amendment defense to shed some crocodile tears. even though i am loathe to help the republicans with anything, my advice to her before 2012 is this: please read the constitution at least once. it might help.
someone needs to buy these people a clue.
"The liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against Carrie Prejean for expressing her opinion is despicable. Carrie and I spoke soon after the attacks started; I can relate as a liberal target myself. What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe - marriage is between a man and a woman. I applaud Donald Trump for standing with Carrie during this time. And I respect Carrie for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation's First Amendment Rights. Our Constitution protects us all - not just those who agree with the far left."oy. where to begin. for starters, let me say that i think it is wrong for pagent judges to punish someone for their personal views. she was asked a question about gay marriage and she answered truthfully. there is nothing wrong with that. i don't really know how these things are judged, but it would seem to me that the context of a statement is not the criteria under which it should be judged.
-Governor Sarah Palin
now on with the palin bashing. its amazing that this woman was a heartbeat of a heartbeat from being a heartbeat away from the presidency. she clearly has no idea what the first amendment means. to help her out, allow me to reprint the text of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." i would like to invite the erstwhile governor of the great state of alaska to please explain how miss california is being denied her first amendment rights to freedom of speech.
it seems to me that she got herself into hot water because of her first amendment protections, not in spite of it. the first amendment has to do with congress restricting the freedom of speech, not perez hilton. this is the twisted logic of the republican party these days. they clearly have absolutely NO IDEA what the constitution says or means. those parts about due process and protection against cruel and unusual punishment? optional. equal protection of the laws? for everyone but the gays. that part in the preamble that talks about providing for the general welfare? clearly not universal health care, but the part in the preamble about providing for the common defense? that part is all that matters.
this isn't the first time palin has used some weak-ass first amendment defense to shed some crocodile tears. even though i am loathe to help the republicans with anything, my advice to her before 2012 is this: please read the constitution at least once. it might help.
someone needs to buy these people a clue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
