January 14, 2007

Pedro Has A 19-Year-Old Son?!

Raise your hand if you knew this.

Pedro Esmeli Martinez is a relief pitcher in the Mets organization (stats).

Martinez is quiet about his private life, but I believe he has four children, including two younger kids with his fiance.

Someone at SoSH said that the talk on WEEI was that Pedro had adopted this son (though the two men have very similar builds). If not, he was conceived right around Pedro's 15th birthday.

59 comments:

L-girl said...

Perhaps he is a family member, such as a nephew, that Pedro adopted. That is not uncommon in Latino families (and other more traditional cultures) when one person can provide more financially.

Just a thought.

redsock said...

Or Pedro was doing more than just sitting under that mango tree!

L-girl said...

Pedro has never looked like the mango tree type to me. :)

9casey said...

Or maybe Pedro is older than he says he is...Shoot I am sure we all know someone who had a child at 15...

Peter N said...

He is an adopted child! I thought you knew! Hi to you...hope all is well! P

SoxFan said...

Interesting... could be his biological child

L-girl said...

We all know *women* who had children at 15. I bet very few (none?) of us know any man who fathered a child at 15 and acknowledged it as an adult.

Jan said...

looks like Pedro may have had a VERY good 15th birthday, and a very BAD 16th one. -Mulceber

Jere said...

Any updates on this? Peter says he's adopted, yet I can't find that info anywhere.

Fenway Blogger said...

I have read somewhere Pedro has an adopted son in the past. Pedro is known for a good changeup!!

Peter N said...

It's public knowlege! I wouldn't have said it if I didn't read it from the AP....but you can't always believe what you read. Of this, I'm sure!

L-girl said...

It's public knowlege!

So are Santa Claus, the Resurrection and the Bush presidency - yet they're all fictitious.

Forget public knowledge. Folks around here like evidence.

L-girl said...

And for the record, I think he's probably a family member who Pedro adopted (called a kinship adoption in the US). I just wouldn't state it as fact.

9casey said...

I 'll give you Santa Claus. The Bush Presidency may not be good but it is real, and the Resurection, that's something I choose to beleive in . It is amazing how you can take something and twist it , like Pedro having a son adopted or his own, something that is none of anyone's business, Redsock mentions it, I believe just because it was some news in a slow red sox news time, and then you take it, and somehow get a shot in at Christianity, unbelievable.....You never cease to amaze me....

Jere said...

So you think a person can be dead for years, and then come back to life? And you're calling someone ELSE an asshole?

A shot at Christianity, ha! Christianity better have a thick bullet-proof vest on after all the damage it's caused.

"Back up in your ass with the resurrection."

Also, Trot's an Indian.

9casey said...

I didn't call anyone an asshole..
That's not fair..

I said what I said and that's that I was speaking to L-girl and I am sure she will comment..

But I will not get in a battle about beliefs ...

This is definetly not the forum for that....

Jere said...

"I didn't call anyone an asshole..
That's not fair.."

You did not, in the literal sense, call anyone an asshole. I agree.

redsock said...

Children, please.

L-girl said...

It is amazing how you can take something and twist it , like Pedro having a son adopted or his own, something that is none of anyone's business, Redsock mentions it, I believe just because it was some news in a slow red sox news time, and then you take it, and somehow get a shot in at Christianity, unbelievable.....You never cease to amaze me....

Well, I'm so glad I'm amazing! Thanks!

However, you've missed the point entirely.

I was listing things that I think are fiction. You of course are free to believe whatever you choose.

I'm also free to post whatever I choose, and if Redsock thinks it's out of line, he'll let me know.

To my knowledge, Redsock has no rule banning political or religious views on JoS. If he makes such a rule, I'll abide by it.

In the meantime, those of us who think the Ressurection and Bush calling himself President are as fictitious as Santa Claus might get a chuckle out of it.

Those of us who don't agree with that can be offended or bored or amazed or whatever.

Have a nice day.

L-girl said...

By the way, I didn't think that 9Casey called me an asshole in his post, literally or otherwise.

Zenslinger said...

Assess the truthfulness of this: Trot Nixon at $3m is the bargain of the offseason for the "Tribe".

l-girl, you're starting with a baseline that Santa doesn't exist. Although I am about Pedro's age, I may not be far above him in emotional maturity, so take it easy on Santa Clause. I still believe in him.

Although I must say I lost all faith down 3-0 in 2004.

L-girl said...

so take it easy on Santa Clause. I still believe in him.

Each to his own. :-)

I'm quite fond of the Dorothy, Toto, and the whole WofO gang myself.

9casey said...

Thank You , for not thinking I was calling you anything......

If I missed the point.then thats my fault......

Redsock did you delete for the cussing or the ridculousness of it all?


Lgirl said:
"In the meantime, those of us who think the Ressurection and Bush calling himself President are as fictitious as Santa Claus might get a chuckle out of it.

Those of us who don't agree with that can be offended or bored or amazed or whatever"

It's just hard for me not be offened...

If in the past I have ridiculed your view points or beliefs..I apologize....But I am just asking for the same respect, whether from you or Jere......

I am by far the best catholic in the world but my faith has got me through some tough times in my life.....and sometimes when it is mocked it tends to offend.....

Jere said...

I guess I have to explain myself on the "calling someone an asshole without using the actual phrase" idea. 9Casey was mad at L-girl for taking a shot at Christianity, as if she was somehow an asshole for taking some other topic and bringing it around to a shot at his religion. My point was that he's th esilly one because what he's defending is something that reality proves DOESN'T exist.

But then, in classic "avoid the issue" arguing style, he takes one little thing I say, focuses on it, and turns it into a different argument. Nobody cares about the semantics, we all know what he said because it's written right there.

Jack Marshall said...

Yikes! I take a couple days off from checking JOS and a religious war breaks out!

Look, nobody's stated opinion about what they do and don't believe should "offend" anyone. You may disagree with the opinion, and you may think less of a person who holds an opinion that you find repugnant (Mel Gibson,Michael Richards...), but unless the opinion is aimed at you personally (as in Simon Cowell's recent "I think you look like a bushbaby" comment to a pathetic "Idol" auditioner with large eyes)
there is no justification for "taking offense."

People just have to stop chilling open communication by being "offended;" expressing informed opinions to each other is how we learn. Unless all beliefs of any kind (politics, religion, philosophy) are open for debate, we trap ourselves in ignorance. Right?

I'm not even offended when people say they love the Yankees. I think they're despicable, but I'm not offended.

redsock said...

Belief in the Resurrection is not a hallmark of only one religion (if I recall), so I don't think saying that it's fiction was a shot at any one commenter's religion, just as generally mentioning the falsity of the claim that Bush was truly elected to his current office isn't a shot at any one commenter's politics.

P.S. I deleted the name-calling and general vapidity and stupidity of the two comments.

Zenslinger said...

I don't blame someone for getting offended when their beliefs are reduced to something "reality proves DOESN'T exist." (How the hell does reality prove such a thing?)

I teach World Religions. Since we were starting class today (as we always do) with this quote from sociologist Emile Durkheim about how to approach the study of religion, it might just be within the realm of usefulness to quote it here:

"What I ask of the free thinker is that he should confront religion in the same mental state as the believer...He who does not bring to the study of religion a sort of religious sentiment cannot speak about it! He is like a blind man trying to talk about colour.

Now I shall address the free believer...Without going so far as to abandon the formula we blieve in, we must forget it provisionally, reserving the right to return to it later...

There cannot be a rational interpretation of religion which is fundatmentally irreligious; an irreligious interpretation of religion would be an interpretation which denied the phenomenon it was trying to explain."

Jack Marshall said...

"There cannot be a rational interpretation of religion which is fundamentally irreligious; an irreligious interpretation of religion would be an interpretation which denied the phenomenon it was trying to explain."

Boy, this lost me.
So one has to accept the phenomenon to challenge it and deny it? Talk about a Catch 22; I'd call that stacking the logical deck. One can certainly enter a discussion of religion by saying, "Show me. You are positing that which has no logical, rational or theoretical basis. The burden is on you to give me a concrete reason to consider supernatural phenomenon. I'm open-minded, but that doesn;t mean that I'm going to accept naked faith or ancient dogma without something more."

Zenslinger said...

I don't take the study of religion to be the apprehension of proof of supernatural activity and don't encourage my students to do so either. All religions can be easily mocked as being superstitious or unscientific. The question is what is the religious phenomenon mean? You can deny God exists, but not religion.

Durkheim's saying that if you're an atheist or skeptic, you have to believe a little bit, provisionally, to understand what it's all about. And if you're a believer, you have to put aside your beliefs to some extent (again provisionally) to understand a system different from the one you believe in.

Zenslinger said...

"You are positing that which has no logical, rational or theoretical basis."

It occurs to me that your quote could also apply to baseball fandom. For Durkheim, The Joy of Sox has the same basis as religion does -- not a logical or rational, but a social basis.

I have no problem with the notion that Red Sox Nation is a religion. It's just one that displays its miracles a little less often than we would hope.

9casey said...

Jere said
"My point was that he's th esilly one because what he's defending is something that reality proves DOESN'T exist. "

Maybe to you it dosen't.

There is a difference in arguing and discussing, and actually mocking . To put the Ressurection in the same Class as St. Nick and Bush is mocking , in my opinion..

And Jere quote me all you want say I'm silly for what I write, I have no problem with that , but don't say I wrote something I didn't.....

redsock said...

Durkheim's saying that if you're an atheist or skeptic, you have to believe a little bit, provisionally, to understand what it's all about.

Really? Wouldn't you just need some knowledge about it (how it works, what is required, etc.) in order to understand more of what it's all about?

9casey said...

faith: belief that is not based on proof.....

That's all I am going to post about this subject.....I promise

Jack Marshall said...

Z: I don't know that "mocked" is a fair characterization of a straightforward description of the apparent features of a belief (just because something appears supernatural doesn't mean it couldn't exist.) Who denies that religion exists? Surely one can believe that religion exists, that it can be an important part of the social and civil connective tissue of civilization, that it can be vital in giving individuals a bold linear constant to guide them through chaos, that it can be a useful tool in self-examination and personal growth, and still not "believe." Any belief system that claims that I have to abandon rationality to consider it is cheating.

L-girl said...

There is a difference in arguing and discussing, and actually mocking . To put the Ressurection in the same Class as St. Nick and Bush is mocking , in my opinion.

I'm an atheist, and a Jew. If I can live in this society without taking personal offense at the myriad references to god and Christianity everywhere I turn, I think a believer in the Resurrection should be able to read one sentence on one blog that expresses beliefs different than his own without having a little hissy fit - even if those beliefs are expressed with a sardonic or slightly mocking tone.

Someone mocked your beliefs? Well boo fucking hoo. Get over yourself. It's not enough to be part of the majority, you have to be insulated from the slightest bit of mocking or jokes?

And supposedly we progressives and feminists are the ones who are so sensitive!

* * *

If I had substituted "Zeus" for the Ressurection in that statement, I doubt 9Casey would have cared. (Just an assumption, correct me if I'm wrong.)

But in my belief system, Christianity is no better and no worse, no more plausible and no more foolish, than belief in Zeus. But oh my, can't make fun of Christianity.

If your beliefs are worth a the paper they're printed on, they can stand up to a little bit of mocking.

L-girl said...

Any belief system that claims that I have to abandon rationality to consider it is cheating.

All religions require that you abandon rationality. Faith is not rational.

That in itself doesn't make it bad or wrong, in my opinion. The best of what humans are is often irrational. But religion itself is highly irrational.

Jack Marshall said...

Actually, 9casey, there's a lot more evidence of the Resurrection than there is that Bush wasn't elected. The latter belief is sort of a religion with the Angry Left that has no basis in fact, law, the actual events, the vote count, mathematics, the Constitution or anything else...but it's comforting, they love it, and as long as they don't proselytize too much, it's OK. One difference is that the Resurrection supports a philosophy of love, and the 2000 election mythology supports one of hate.

KA-BOOOM!!!!!!
I'm going to play video games with my son now. I'm sure I'll hear the explosion from the North in his room....

L-girl said...

there's a lot more evidence of the Resurrection than there is that Bush wasn't elected.

No explosion. You're just wrong. If you want to review some of the mountains of evidence that has been compiled proving this fact, Allan and I will be happy to send email you documents and links.

On the other hand, if you want to close your mind and make broad statements about the "angry left" - as if the issue doesn't transcend political boundaries, as if fair elections only matter in terms of winners and losers - you share that perogative with many of your ignorant compatriots.

I would think someone who expresses such concern about ethical behavior would care about fair elections, the cornerstone of democracy. But maybe it's just too scary to contemplate that you don't live in a democracy anymore.

L-girl said...

and the 2000 election mythology supports one of hate.

Hate? I can't imagine how you think this has anything to do with hate.

Do you imagine we'd be any less upset about stolen elections if Gore or Kerry had been placed in the White House? If you do, you haven't the slightest idea who you're dealing with.

And that's both 2000 and 2004, by the way. Both have been proven beyond any reasonable and rational doubt.

Zenslinger said...

I need a beer.

I wish there was some baseball on to go with it.

redsock said...

I would think someone who expresses such concern about ethical behavior would care about fair elections, the cornerstone of democracy.

I cannot improve on this sentence.

The latter belief is sort of a religion with the Angry Left that has no basis in fact, law, the actual events, the vote count, mathematics, the Constitution or anything else...but it's comforting, they love it

Yeah, we love it. We loved it soooooo much that it (along with a mountain of other shit) compelled us to uproot our lives and move to another country. Jesus, Jack, what are you on?

An observation: People who speak definitely about things they actually know nothing about always sound like morons.

Jere said...

"I deleted the name-calling and general vapidity and stupidity of the two comments."

I'd like to defend my deleted comment as witty and anything but stupid. You can check my track record, I don't go around giving one word, derogatory comments. That one might have appeared that way, but it was done to make a point: We talked about whether or not someone called someone (blank), and when they attempted to blow off the argument, I responded simply by calling them that same (blank). It will live on in my file of great lost comments:)

Zenslinger said...

In my mind, I am ordering my second beer.

Jere said...

"And Jere quote me all you want say I'm silly for what I write, I have no problem with that , but don't say I wrote something I didn't....."

I already agreed with you that you didn't literally use the word "asshole." What you wrote is there and my response is there. I can assure you I'm not trying to twist your words or fool anyone. My comment was right after yours, and I reacted to it. If somebody called you a douche and you saw that guy and said to him, "Hey, what's with you calling me a douchebag?" And he said, "I never called you that." Well, wouldn't you be pissed if he started calling you a liar, and turning it into a fight about exactly what term was used, when you both know what he meant? It's like in Taxi Driver, when Travis tells Iris that Sport called her a "little chicken." Sport totally didn't say that, but we all got the point.

"How the hell does reality prove such a thing?"

Because there's no physical proof of anyone ever dying and coming back to life. (Nikki Sixx doesn't count--remember, I said, originally, dead for years) Or, interestingly, that there's a "hell."

Zenslinger said...

Reality does not show that the Ressurection did not take place. Hard to prove a negative.

Jere said...

It's all made up, man. Just a story, nothing more.

Jack Marshall said...

Redsock,Laura, you lovely and passionate people, I guarantee you that not only do I know what I'm talking about, I have done about as much research on it as one possibly can and maintain a professional life.

In addition to reading most of the books on the subjcet and watching every bit of the controversy as it unfolded, being both an attorney and a specialist in US Presidential elections myself, close associates of mine in both parties were involved in the recount and court challenges, and one ne of my closest friends, an specialist is computers and statistics, was an expert in one of the law suits. Speaking of ethics, I regard the constant claim that the election was "stolen" as a classic "Big Lie," and one that has unethically undermined, unfairly and dangerously, the public's faith in the integrity of the electoral system, and to some extent was calculated to do so for political gain.

The fact that people who obviously have intelligence and civic dedication would believe it is just sad; that it would ever play a part in making someone leave their country is tragic. I know you had other reasons, and by definition they would have to have been better ones.

This is indeed a baseball blog, and I have no desire or need to educate you or anyone else by going through the tons of crystal-clear evidence on the topic, including the complete results of the multiple media-run "recounts" which, at very least, proved that it was impossible to settle on a definitive vote count when the error margin of the available tally measures were larger than the vote disparity I have both analyzed and taught the key decisions in the case. Disagree if you want, but don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. It is arrogant, insulting and ironic, as the statement itself claims knowledge of my background and study of the issue that you do not have.

My comment was more than justified, given Laura's gratuitous (though not offensive!)and deliberately provocative pronouncements about religion and faith, because the anti-Bush election arguments are similarly based on faith, or perhaps determination of the "don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up" variety. I could (and in more appropriate setting, have) eviscerated the astounding argument that the US government plotted the destuction of the Twin Towers, a fantasy right up there with Holacuast denial and the Moon Walk Conspiracy. It blows my mind that intelligent people believe such bile, and yes, it IS motivated by hate...and the hate is supported by the unfounded belief that the Bush administration is an "unelected" government.

I would NEVER call either of you "morons," and I do take offense at that, as I do to being called "ignorant" as I am lumped in with some "ilk." You don't know me, guys...I have no "ilk."

In fact, I'm shocked and annoyed...and I am certainly not "just wrong." Stating that the 2000 or 2004 elections were "stolen" is the result of one of three things: bias, ignorance, or willful dishonesty. Because I know you are honest and sincere,that leaves bias. That's no crime; we're all biased somewhere. But it doesn't make you correct.

Don't call me a moron again, please. I think That's a fair request.

L-girl said...

Jack, either your research was extremely biased, or you're lying. Had you done even a fraction of the research you claim, you would know beyond any doubt that both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were stolen.

Fraudulent.

Fixed.

Also, no one here called you a moron.

Redsock said:
"People who speak definitely about things they actually know nothing about always sound like morons. "

If that applies to you - if you sounded like a moron because you spoke definitively about something you know nothing about - it's easily avoided. If not, then you have no complaint.

I find your patronizing -- "you lovely and passionate people" -- extremely irritating. I've refrained from mentioning it in the past, but I'm really friggin sick of it. If you could manage to address me without that, I would greatly appreciate it. If you disagree with me, disagree with me. I don't need your fake stroking to mollify it. It's condescending, and I wish you would cut it out.

L-girl said...

that it would ever play a part in making someone leave their country is tragic. I know you had other reasons, and by definition they would have to have been better ones.

It's a huge part of why we left. Sometimes I think it's the base reason, from which all others spring. I prefer to live in a democracy.

L-girl said...

Disagree if you want, but don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

When it comes to this, you do not know what you are talking about.

You are wrong.

That's not an insult. It's a fact.

redsock said...

The US Supreme Court ordered a halt to the counting of votes in Florida before all of the votes cast had been properly counted. That is a fact.

The final result of the 2000 election was thus left in permanent doubt. We will never know who truly won the 2000 election.

The Supreme Court was forced to stop the democratic process because, as Justice Scalia admitted, a continued recount would be "casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

Bush's 2000 victory was unproven, illegitimate and wholly undemocratic. That cannot be denied.

L-girl said...

There are a lot of other facts - about both elections - you're not stating. I admire your restraint. :)

Jack Marshall said...

Sorry...You guys are ridiculous on this topic, to be blunt. You act as if what you believe is a "fact" when the majority of serious, unbiased historians, attorneys, judges (read Posner's book) and jounalists think otherwise. The definition of a fanatic: someone who is ceratin beyond reason that he or she is right, when unbiased and thorough analysts have concluded otherwise. Yours is only the majority opinion among a relatively small group of like-minded people with whom you habitually confer. The Daily Kos and Robert Kennedy Jr. agree with you. I ain't impressed.

You don't want facts, you want indictments. If you looked even half-way at the situation as it occurred, you would know that the election was going into the House of Representatives under the best case scenario for Gore, where he would have lost anyway. Period. The Supreme Court's decision (the 100% right one, which I had predicted weeks earlier) only avoided an interminable delay.
The Pro-Bush decision by the Florida (Democrat-appointed)judge that was overturned on a partisan 4-3 vote in the state Supreme Court was a slam dunk: the Gore team and Bois made a weak, weak, weak, argument, not even supported by their own experts. Did you listen to all of the arguments and read the transcript? I did. Ditto the Bois Supreme Court argument...poor. Did you listen to all of that? Read the tramscript? All the opinions? I did. Read many Supreme Court opinions, do you? I read about 75% of them (it's part of my job), and the court is NOT a bunch of political hacks.

The Florida Court decided to follow a terrible Massachussetts precedent in controvention of State law...THAT's a fact...by allowing non-votes to be treated as votes, using standards that were not the same from county to county. There was no "properly counted"...if you had a smidgeon of understanding of what went on, you wouldn't say such an ignorant thing. THAT's why the recount was halted...read the damn opinion.
NO recount was ever going to tell who "really" won, because the votes were too close. Read some statistical analyses of the problem if you don't believe me. You can't "steal" an election by 500 votes...its too unpredictable. Bush was L-U-C-K-Y. Get it? No Nader, Gore wins. No idiotic Democratic chairwoman in Palm Beach approiving a stupid ballot, Gore wins. Fewer Democrats too dumb to make sure that their card was punched out right, Gore wins...and nobody talks about anyone trying to steal anything.

I know the "evidence" you think you have, and it's crap...which is what 85% of all historical accounts will record.

I have always attempted to convey genuine respect for you guys because I read the foaming at the mouth venom you write on the other sites, and it's clear that this stuff isn't something you can discuss dispassionately...hence anyone who disagrees with your fantasies must be "lying" or "a moron." You feel deeply about this stuff. I get that. But your degree of certitude is absurd given your extreme views. And the facts, the realk facts, in contxt with events, do not support your theory.

The system worked despite an election too close to call. You decided to pick up your marbles and leave. Too bad.

And I'm sorry if I offended you by trying to be respectful. I'll avoid that next time.

redsock said...

Posner's book

Please. Posner is a hack. Giving him the time of day is like turning to Chass for baseball analysis.

The Daily Kos and Robert Kennedy Jr. agree with you. I ain't impressed.

Yup, all four of us. That's it. Quite a minority opinion. I have no interest in anything Status Quo Kos says.

the Gore team and Bois made a weak, weak, weak, argument, not even supported by their own experts.

We agree here. Completely.

The Florida Court decided to follow a terrible Massachussetts precedent in controvention of State law...THAT's a fact...by allowing non-votes to be treated as votes, using standards that were not the same from county to county. There was no "properly counted"...THAT's why the recount was halted

So as long as the standards varied -- which they did in Florida and do all over the country -- there was no obligation to actually count the votes?

Why do we bother counting any votes ever, if the standards vary across the country?

You can't "steal" an election by 500 votes...its too unpredictable.

But you can successfully disqualify and turn away as many minority (usually Democratic) voters as possible to hopefully narrow (for example) a gap -15,000 to -400. Then it's off to the courts where anything is possible.

I know the "evidence" you think you have, and it's crap...which is what 85% of all historical accounts will record.

News flash, Jack! The "stolen election" remains a wild kooky conspiracy theory. You put it in the same category as the faked moon landing.

I have always attempted to convey genuine respect for you guys because I read the foaming at the mouth venom you write on the other sites, and it's clear that this stuff isn't something you can discuss dispassionately

always attempted to convey genuine respect?

Your acting skills are slipping.

At what other site do I write "foaming at the mouth venom"?

You can drop the smug act, also. I'm being just as dispassionate and calm and rational with my typing here as you are. So fuck you.

L-girl said...

"given our extreme views"

Yes. It's extreme. The United States is extremely fucked up. The democracy is extremely broken. The people being killed in Iraq are extremely dead, the people doing the killing are extremely murderous and growing extremely dead inside.

Meanwhile, smug self-styled ethicists who read a book on the subject can keep their blinders on while their country slides down the toilet, while the cronies of an unelected government get rich off other people's misery.

Yeah, it's extreme. You're extremely blind. But better blind and dumb than leftist, right?

Posner. You're telling us to read Posner. That's the expert you're holding up - and we're supposed to take you seriously.

I picked up my marbles because the things I value are dead in the United States. Because I value justice and democracy more than I value a design on a flag. If that makes me foaming at the mouth, I'll wear it proudly.

L-girl said...

The Daily Kos and Robert Kennedy Jr. agree with you. I ain't impressed.

Yup, all four of us. That's it. Quite a minority opinion.


By the way, it doesn't matter how many people believe in or agree with something. Jack Marshall ought to know that popularity has no bearing on the validity or veracity of any idea or theory - especially in a country where the populace is grossly underinformed and/or misinformed! Surveys are still showing that a large percentage of Americans believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11!

The day I agree with a majority opinion in the US, someone will be feeding me baby food in a nursing home in Ontario and I'll think the nurse is Mick Jagger.

L-girl said...

Then it's off to the courts where anything is possible.

And where the deciding Justice admitted that she did not want a Democrat in the White House because she was soon retiring, and wanted a Republican to choose her successor.

Or did you forget that O'Connor said that?

Don't worry, I didn't want the fucking Democrat either. I just wanted an election, instead of an installation.

But then, I'm a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic. Regular folks don't care about such things.

L-girl said...

To anyone who might be reading this exchange, now or in the future, if you are interested in another perspective on the 2000 election, especially what happened in Florida, I highly recommend "Unprecedented," a film by Robert Greenwald, available on DVD.

About "Unprecendented" and Robert Greenwald's other movies.

redsock said...

I wonder what Good Ol' Unbiased Posner has to say about this.