Wakefield, on what he thought he might say to Bush:
"'Thanks for a great eight years.' I'm a big fan of his."
Good fucking lord. This is why I shouldn't read these stories. I want to think think the players I like have a bit of class.
(I wasn't planning on even acknowledging the visit, but I really liked the photo of Tiz.)
But no, there they are -- talking about the men and women at Walter Reed who were wounded while protecting the country -- come on, there can't be more than five or six people in the entire world over the age of 9 who still believe that shit.
Except, fuck - I can't ignore this - what a complete asshole;
From the article: "Sorry ... Manny Ramirez isn't here, I guess his grandmother died again," Bush joked. Real fucking joke.
Interestingly, Ramirez also missed the Sox' White House ceremony in 2005 in what Terry Francona called an "excused absence". A straight-faced Johnny Damon said at the 2005 ceremony that he heard Ramirez's grandmother was sick and Ramirez was with her in Miami.
Hey, these guys have been playing a kids game and collecting millions of dollars in salary and endorsements for 8 years. If that's your complete focus---and professional athletes are nothing if not single-minded--sure its been a great 8 years...for them.
It's hard enough keeping sports heroes based on what they DO. Holding them to high standards based on what they say or believe about matters outside their narrow world-view seems a little unreasonable...naive, even.
Especially if they throw a knuckleball, for Chrissakes.
Knowing Wakefield has done a ton of charity work while with the Sox, I'd be surprised if baseball is his sole focus. He appears tro have a heart. But if that's how he truly feels, then he's either (i) a very rich man who doesn't give a fuck about anyone else since he's got his or (ii) he's dumber than a wheelbarrow of mud.
Holding them to high standards based on what they say or believe about matters outside their narrow world-view seems a little unreasonable...naive, even.
I can be naive from time to time. ... But I don't really hold these guys to higher moral standards. I just don't like it when baseball players on my chosen team out themselves as admirers of war criminals.
redsock said... I just don't like it when baseball players on my chosen team out themselves as admirers of war criminals.
seems like a pretty low threshold, if ya ask me.
I can hardly wait 'til the games get underway, though. The snow and I are through. Except, each time I break it off, the snow come crawling back...won't you have me? I'll give you some more.
whatever. dump the criminals in the rivers running swift from the melting snow and play ball.
HA! One decent (and true) thing GWB has said in his life...about Dice-K..."one thing we have in common - we both have trouble answering questions in english"
Yeah, and D-K's spoken english is probably on par with his as well :P
and professional athletes are nothing if not single-minded
Huge assumption. They have to be highly focused, for sure, but they do not have to be single-minded. Professional athletes can (and usually do) have interests outside their own sport, as much as any other successful professional has outside their career.
They can certainly be expected to know a bit about what's going on in the world. It's not naive to think an athlete might have a brain in his head. It seems condescending to just assume he doesn't.
You are a typical liberal: if someone disagrees with your perspective on the world, that person is an idiot. That's the oldest b.s. line in the book: that liberals are smart and conservatives are stupid.
Let Wake and Schilling have their own political views. They are AMERICANS and their right to speak their political views is GUARANTEED by our Constitution.
There would be a whole lot less partisanship in this country and a lot more work being done if people would not automatically dismiss other people's views. Have an open mind and realize that some people see things differently than you.
Oh, and by the way, the assertion that you have to be rich to be a Republican is also a boat load of bull. That is a tired myth as well. There are lots of poor Republicans (I happen to be one) and there are plenty of rich Democrats. There are plenty of rich Communists too -- just ask Fidel and Raul.
With the intelligence and creativity that you bring to this blog, I am surprised that you would make such simplistic statements on those tired stereotypical grounds.
Let's get back to talking baseball, huh? Political talk on this blog isn't going to solve anything and it is just going to make us all miserable.
Let Wake and Schilling have their own political views.
I'm not stopping them from expressing their opinions. You know that.
They are AMERICANS and their right to speak their political views is GUARANTEED by our Constitution.
As am I. And that's what I was doing. Which you also know. ... So what's your problem?
(P.S. I don't care that they are AMERICANS. They could be from anywhere. They could be from Mars. They can still express themselves. being American doesn't give them any extra rights (or fewer rights).)
Have an open mind and realize that some people see things differently than you.
Clearly, you can tell I realize other people have differing opinions. But:
At this point, anyone who supports the current occupant of the White House is either (a) unconcerned with anyone on the planet other than himself or herself, (b) desirous of living under fascism, or (c) stupid as shit. There are NO other choices. (Even ignorance is no excuse at this point.)
Oh, and by the way, the assertion that you have to be rich to be a Republican is also a boat load of bull.
I never said that. You know that. Why why bring it up?
There are lots of poor Republicans (I happen to be one)
You are a fool. To paraphrase one politician, that's like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
There are plenty of rich Communists too
And?
I am surprised that you would make such simplistic statements on those tired stereotypical grounds.
I didn't say any of the things you are claiming I said.
Let's get back to talking baseball, huh?
If you don't like the rare non-baseball discussion here, don't participate. Or leave a baseball comment.
Political talk on this blog isn't going to solve anything
Shit Allan, when did you turn into a liberal? You've moved to the right and left me out here in leftyland by myself? Next time you make a major life change like that, please do let me know.
Let's get back to talking baseball, huh?
Says a man who just left a political speech on a baseball blog.
But what can we expect from a poor Republican.
That's it, Allan; by expressing your own opinions on your own website, you've gone too far.
Baseball is hereby cancelled. Nobody gets to have baseball. I hope you're proud of yourself.
From my understanding of what you have written here an elsewhere you are:
1. Not a liberal (I was being generous in calling you that, but since you insist...). You are further left of that. What should I call you? I will leave the labelling of your political viewpoint up to you in the effort to avoid offending you.
2. Not an American anymore, having moved to Canada and renouncing our elections. You may still hold a U.S. passport, but physically and ideologically you have left the country some time ago.
Further, to address your response to me:
1. You stated the following: "But if that's how he truly feels, then he's either (i) a very rich man who doesn't give a fuck about anyone else since he's got his or (ii) he's dumber than a wheelbarrow of mud." You mused that Wakefield must be making his comments because of the money that he has made. Thus, in a backhanded manner you insinuated rich=Republican. Or at least that making lots of money makes you a supporter of George Bush. However, the words "rich" and "Republican" are NOT synonyms. You don't have to be one in order to be the other.
2. That same quoted statement you said that he was either too rich or too stupid if he supports Bush. Then later you said: "At this point, anyone who supports the current occupant of the White House is either (a) unconcerned with anyone on the planet other than himself or herself, (b) desirous of living under fascism, or (c) stupid as shit. There are NO other choices. (Even ignorance is no excuse at this point.)"
You prove my point that you make broad, sweeping generalizations when you make political opinion statements with quotes like that.
Just because YOU don't like George Bush or the Iraq war does not mean that everyone should feel as you do. And emphasizing your earlier myopic viewpoint with this new quote doesn't help your case.
A legitimate argument can be made that Bush's Iraq policy will in the end be successful and will also be in the United State's best strategic interest. Your opinion to the contrary does not make your dim view FACT.
Fascism? How exactly do you define this word, and what empirical evidence do you have that George Bush should be labelled a fascist? Last I heard, we are having an election in which Bush will be replaced. Probably by Barack Obama. Is he fascist too?
There are some people in this country that believe that Bush is doing the right thing in fighting terrorism and ridding Iraq of a tyrant (a true fascist, if you want to see one). It sounds as if Wake is one of those. Does that mean that he is "unconcerned with anyone on the planet other than himself or herself"?? I don't think so.
Do Americans enjoy greater rights than people elsewhere? Yes, we do, by virtue of the rights guaranteed us under the United States Constitution. Not every country has granted its people such rights. You may say that people have inherent self evident rights, and you would be correct in saying that, but in only a few countries are those self evident rights PROTECTED by the government as they are here. A Chinese citizen may hold inherent rights as a human, but the Chinese government may not recognize those self-evident rights and still through him in jail for practicing a Christian religion or for gaining access to our internet.
You should stick to baseball, Redsock. Your political "logic" leaves a lot to be desired. And the "people's mob" that you may cloak yourself in does not disguise that fact.
So, let's talk baseball unless you want to argue some more.
A legitimate argument can be made that Bush's Iraq policy will in the end be successful and will also be in the United State's best strategic interest.
There's little doubt the occupation of Iraq is in the United State's best strategic interest. If you want to control the world's resources, it's best to control the countries where those resources are found.
Whether or not that is best for the people of the world who do not profit from the resources is a separate question.
I'd like to hear that "legitmate argument". Come on, poor Republican, let's hear it.
You should stick to Free Republic, Mugro. You're too stupid and uninformed to argue about social issues with people who actually know what they're talking about.
If you're interested in hearing first-hand accounts of what the US is actually doing in Iraq, veterans and active servicepeople will be testifying about it from March 13-16.
The event is called "Winter Soldier" - it's organized by Iraq Veterans Against the War. You can listen on the radio, online or watch through the Dish Network.
It may be a watershed event for the peace movement. It's also a great way to support military resistance to the war - which is big, and growing. More information here.
and what empirical evidence do you have that George Bush should be labelled a fascist?
Sound familar? ... I would also highly recommend Naomi Wolf's "The End of America". In a very readable style, she pinpoints 10 signs of a totalitarian state and provides numerous examples -- both from around the world in the 20th Century and in the US right now.
the "people's mob" that you may cloak yourself in
!
So, let's talk baseball unless you want to argue some more.
Sweetheart, this isn't an argument. I can talk all I want and then simply delete any response(s) from you.
I don't wanna sound like I don't give a shit, but like the South Park kids in the Crips episode, I am seriously staying out of this one and will just commence giggling at Flo in a sidecar.
Oh thank God. In the mean time I'm still trying to stockpile ammunition (not in terms of warmongering FYI) against those pin-striped blowhards and their "youze goiys" fanbase. I had to leave my Red Sox Facebook Application due to their sheer retardedness and unwillingness to listen to a decent argument before resorting to homophobic comments about me or Ortiz/Beckett or another God-damned 26 rings slogan.
I told myself I wasn't wasting anymore time on this, but ...
A legitimate argument can be made that Bush's Iraq policy will in the end be successful and will also be in the United State's best strategic interest. Your opinion to the contrary does not make your dim view FACT.
"He don't know me very well, do he?" (/bugs)
Not only do I agree with your claim, but I'll go one step further:
Bush's Iraq policy has been a rousing success since the first day of the invasion.
People on the left have been saying for years that Bush is incompetent and he bungled Iraq. Wrong. Iraq has gone exactly the way they expected and exactly the way they wanted. If they had wanted a different result, they would have made another plans.
Look at all they have been able to accomplish in well under a decade. Bush/Cheney are extraordinarily competent.
I only jumped in here because everyone said that excluding political discussion here was not a good idea.
I also jumped in to show that not everyone agrees with Alan and Laura's political views.
I will keep popping up from time to time, unless Alan deletes my posts, to remind people that there is another side to the story.
1. Many posters do not want political discussion here. For the most part, I agree. Therefore, when you see my next political comment, don't say anything. Presto -- no discussion!
2. If you are going to use my name, please spell it correctly. Thanks.
3. Remind us of the other side? I appreciate that, because sometimes CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and 99.998% of the rest of the US media get a little lazy.
Saying something progressive = An attempt to outlaw all other types of speech.
When Wakefield says Bush has been great or Schilling stumps for McCain or Player X says he's glad US troops are fighting the evildoers, why is that NOT considered political commentary by most fans?
Why is my (or someone else's) comment about the player's statement the moment when things turn political?
Why am I accused of injecting politics into the discussion when it was the player who mentioned politics first?
Why are these players not criticized for taking a political stance?
Laura wondered the same thing when she would go to Yankee Stadium. There would be a military jet flyover, there would be a minute of silence before the national anthem for the men and women "defending our freedoms" and then everyone would sing God Bless America in the 7th inning.
This was all normal unpolitical stuff (supposedly), but if Laura chose to remain seated during the anthem or GBA, all of a sudden she was dragging politics into a baseball game?
In this recent example, a Red Sox player made a political statement -- and I, since I write the Red Sox, commented on it. Wakefield brought politics into the baseball discussion. It wasn't me.
Another thing -- what about Red Sox bloggers who express right-wing opinions? Why do they get a free pass? If you expect the baseball blogs you visit to be totally non-partisan, then a right-wing opinion should be just as offensive as a progressive opinion.
So why is posting "Remember 9/11" with eagles and flags alright but posting "Remember 9/11" with a plea to learn more about the attacks totally out of bounds?
Could mugro or another conservative out there explain these things to me?
Again:
Curt Schilling expresses opinion about John McCain = normal talk from a baseball player that does not express a political viewpoint one way or the other.
redsock expresses opinion about John McCain = highly partisan crap that should never be a part of a baseball discussion.
This is something that has long bothered me that no one has been able to explain.
A former Yankee-fan friend of mine was upset (mortified) that I didn't stand for GBA at the Stadium. We had a big talk about it later on.
He said I was bringing politics into a baseball game, where it didn't belong.
George Steinbrenner has military planes flying over the Stadium, we are asked to stand for a moment of silence "for the troops who are fighting to protect our way of life", and there are military marching bands.
I am sitting quietly.
But *I* am bringing politics into the game. Steinbrenner is neutral, I am the political one.
He didn't understand this at all.
Perhaps it's because my views were against the majority?
Curt Schilling expresses opinion about John McCain = normal talk from a baseball player that does not express a political viewpoint one way or the other.
In fairness, I don't think this reflects most people's take on Schilling. When he stumped for Bush in '04, many people were extremely upset and found it highly inappropriate. So much so that he was retracted his "everyone should vote for Bush" statement and changed it to "everyone should vote".
I think people know Schilling's blather is political, and is partisan.
But flag-waving, support the troop ribbons, GBA - people do see that as neutral, I think. (Incorrectly so, IMO.)
Redsock, you wanted me to respond, so I will. There is a lot to respond to!
"Saying something conservative = Normal speech.
Saying something progressive = An attempt to outlaw all other types of speech."
Saying something conservative is saying something conservative. What is normal, anyway??? Perhaps "normal" is centrist. Since your views are much farther to the left than most leftists, your idea of "centrist" is to the left of what other people consider centrist.
A centrist would salute the flag because he considers himself patriotic, but may have misgivings about the war and not support George Bush. A conservative might support the war AND consider it a personal insult to him that someone else did not salute the flag. Personally, I would absolutely salute the flag, but I would not be personally insulted if L-girl were with me at the game and did not stand for the national anthem. I would consider it insulting to the country and would shake my head in disappointment in her, but it is a free country and she has the right to "speak" in that manner.
"When Wakefield says Bush has been great or Schilling stumps for McCain or Player X says he's glad US troops are fighting the evildoers, why is that NOT considered political commentary by most fans?"
That IS political speech. If a player publicly endorses a candidate, campaigns for him, etc., that IS political speech, and he can be held accountable for it one way or another. Just as actors who stump for political causes are also held accountable for their views if they are bold enough to share them with the world.
Most Americans (center right and center left -- Republicans AND Democrats) will say that they support the troops. Many Democrats will say that they oppose the war but support the troops. I guess someone over in the anarchist/communist/socialist camp (or whatever you call yourself), would break with the rest of Americans and not even support the men and women who fight. That is your choice.
"Why is my (or someone else's) comment about the player's statement the moment when things turn political?"
As I said, the situation turned political when the player made the statement, not when you commented about it. In this day and age, the mere fact that the team went to the White House is unavoidably political. That opens the door to political discussion.
When Wakefield makes the comment he made, he is now making a public comment about his political viewpoints that is subject to comment or criticism by others.
"Why am I accused of injecting politics into the discussion when it was the player who mentioned politics first?"
I can only speak for myself here, but this entire news story lends itself to a political discussion. It was before you even posted about it. I don't have a problem with you making your comments in this context. I disagree with what you said, of course, but I do not think that it was out of bounds to comment on politics when the story of the day was the Red Sox going to the White House.
Before, when I infamously objected to your political commentary was more of a situation where your political comments came out of left field when there was not a political subtext already. That was what I thought was tiresome and unnecessary.
So, after you objected quite strongly to my comments, I decided that if it was ok for you to talk about your viewpoints politically, then it was fair game for me to offer mine. But, at the end of the day, as we always recognize, this is your blog and you don't have to post my comments here. (I hope that you would print this response, as you outright requested it!)
"Why are these players not criticized for taking a political stance?"
Baseball players are paid to play baseball, not to offer political commentary. We would have never heard of Curt Schilling if he were a car salesman. We would have never heard his political views either. Just because he is a famous ballplayer, does that give him more of a right for his views to be heard across the nation than I do? No, but this is just the way it is. Just because he is a ball player does not mean that he can never express his views. He DOES have to be accountable for what he DOES say, and if he doesn't want criticism of his views than he should keep them to himself.
"Laura wondered the same thing when she would go to Yankee Stadium. There would be a military jet flyover, there would be a minute of silence before the national anthem for the men and women "defending our freedoms" and then everyone would sing God Bless America in the 7th inning.
This was all normal unpolitical stuff (supposedly), but if Laura chose to remain seated during the anthem or GBA, all of a sudden she was dragging politics into a baseball game?"
She is being silly, but not "dragging politics into a baseball game."
"In this recent example, a Red Sox player made a political statement -- and I, since I write the Red Sox, commented on it. Wakefield brought politics into the baseball discussion. It wasn't me."
I agree.
"Another thing -- what about Red Sox bloggers who express right-wing opinions? Why do they get a free pass? If you expect the baseball blogs you visit to be totally non-partisan, then a right-wing opinion should be just as offensive as a progressive opinion."
Sure. I will give you that point. But, in my perfect world (which of course does not exist!), there would be no intersection of politics and baseball. Baseball would be the one thing that Fidel Castro and me could have in common. We could enjoy it together.
"So why is posting "Remember 9/11" with eagles and flags alright but posting "Remember 9/11" with a plea to learn more about the attacks totally out of bounds?"
Learn more about the attacks, or explore endless loony conspiracy theories?? There is an American patriotism that most Americans subscribe to. If you don't, that is fine, but don't whine about being made into a minority when it was your own choice to divert from the views of the majority of the country.
"Could mugro or another conservative out there explain these things to me?"
I hope my responses addressed your questions adequately.
"Learn more about the attacks, or explore endless loony conspiracy theories?? There is an American patriotism that most Americans subscribe to."
Do you think those are the only choices?
Do you think asking questions and getting more information is unpatriotic?
That's very sad. Thank goodness Americans like Thomas Jefferson, Susan B Anthony and Martin Luther King didn't subscribe to that narrow vision of patriotism.
Saying something conservative is saying something conservative. What is normal, anyway???
Normal = the majority view, mainstream, the default setting, a comment that seems like the common response. That's the reaction to a a conservative comment. A progressive comment is treated as radical and unpatriotic. I want to to why that is.
A conservative might support the war AND consider it a personal insult to him that someone else did not salute the flag.
This is what I don't get. I know you said you wouldn't take it personally, but why would someone take it personally? It has nothing to do with you. It is a personal decision. Sitting for the anthem should draw no more attention or comment than standing. They are both equally valid decisions. But standing is "normal" and sitting will cause idiots to scream curses at you (during the anthem, btw). ... Is it just because you are not following the majority?
That IS political speech. If a player publicly endorses a candidate, campaigns for him, etc., that IS political speech, and he can be held accountable for it one way or another.
So why don't you express the same annoyance at Wakefield? Is it only because you agree with him and disagree with me?
Most Americans (center right and center left -- Republicans AND Democrats) will say that they support the troops. Many Democrats will say that they oppose the war but support the troops. I guess someone over in the anarchist/communist/socialist camp (or whatever you call yourself), would break with the rest of Americans and not even support the men and women who fight. That is your choice.
Call me a progressive. "Support the troops" is an empty cliche --like "family values" -- that anyone can twist to mean anything. So it means nothing.
Many people think "support the troops" means "support the mission". Those people do not support what the troops are doing -- and want them to stop doing it.
When Wakefield makes the comment he made, he is now making a public comment about his political viewpoints that is subject to comment or criticism by others.
However I do not see your displeasure at Wakefield for bringing politics into baseball, only my response.
a situation where your political comments came out of left field when there was not a political subtext already. That was what I thought was tiresome and unnecessary.
I do not know what the situation was. Can you recall?
But, in my perfect world (which of course does not exist!), there would be no intersection of politics and baseball.
Politics has always been a part of baseball. What happened during the two World Wars, the anti-trust exemption, Jackie Robinson, Curt Flood, union-management battles, etc.
Learn more about the attacks, or explore endless loony conspiracy theories??
Subjective descriptions like this are never productive. There have been plenty of people who thought X was loony (like Watergate, for example) until they saw the unmistakable evidence. ... But to answer your question, the former.
Sitting for the anthem should draw no more attention or comment than standing. They are both equally valid decisions.
I would add only one comment to this.
From what I observe, standing for the God Bless America (it wasn't the national anthem!) when directed to by the PA announcer is not a decision.
Call it a reflexive reaction, or obedience, or going along with the crowd, or peer pressure, or what have you. I don't think most people make a conscious decision to stand when 50,000 (or 10) other people around them are standing.
Contrast the absolute nothing that is going on in the media right now over Wakefield's comment with what happened when Carlos Delgado voiced his opinion about the war in 2004.
You two live for this stuff, don't you? What has happened to you in your lives that make you fight against civilized society?
So many comments. Where to begin.
First of all, L-Girl: I can give you "leftist" but I won't allow you "progressive." The word "progressive" has long been co-opted by those on the left who want to glorify their position with a nifty sounding word. Progressive to me means "moving forward" or "advancing new ideas". The peace movement is certainly not a new concept. It is as old as the hills. No progression there. You aren't likely advancing new ideas either. Karl Marx and V. Lenin thought of most of what you two are talking about over a hundred years ago, so the ideas are neither new nor effective.
Come up with truly new ideas, and I will call you progressive. Trendy, yes, but progressive, no.
As you both spend a lot of time thinking, talking and writing about politics, you would think that you would have a better description of your political identity than "leftist" or "progressive."
Another response for L-Girl: asking questions and demanding accountability IS a major part of patriotism AND citizenship. We should always question the policies that our government pursues and the events that occur. To fail to do so would breach a duty that we have as citizens to observe and supervise our government.
As a matter of fact, one of the major deficiencies of thought process of the Democrat party today is the notion that government knows best for all of us and that government can provide all the answers. No, government is NOT always right, and we citizens MUST step in when government is either wrong or inefficient to correct the course of action.
But, when it comes to 9/11 Conspiracies, there is more at work than merely asking questions and demanding accountability. Most of the 9/11 conspiracists have a vested interest in anarchy and deconstructing our democratic system. This is the only rational explanation for their persistence in pursuing wild theories about how 9/11 came about, all with the undertone that our government is to blame.
I have read a lot of these theories, as a good citizen should (to ask questions and investigate allegations of government wrongdoing), but a reasonable person must at some point turn away from such theories as not being credible.
Thomas Jefferson, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King were all very successful in bringing about change because they were rational in their methods. There were plenty of more radical changemongerers on the scene when each of these people were living and operating. These three, however, were excellent examples of reasonable, rational citizens bringing about change WITHIN the system in which they lived. They separated out the true priorities from the more knee jerk emotional reactions of protest, and each succeeded in their cause because of it because they were able to appeal to other reasonable people in their respective communities to follow them and adopt their views. No 9/11 conspiracy theorist will ever be taken seriously in a leadership context.
Redsock: "progressive comments" are considered radical because they ARE by definition outside the mainstream. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot express yourself in a radical manner than then whine about why everyone calls you a radical.
Saluting the flag has been a cultural norm in America for as long as our country has been in existence. Offering respect to a king or other leader or a symbol of that leadership has been a cultural norm in every significant country or culture since ancient Egypt. When you decide to sit while others stand in respect, that is going to be considered radical. Perhaps your problem stems from your lack of understanding this simple concept.
When you KNOW that standing for the national anthem is a majority cultural norm AND a symbol of political patriotism, the act of sitting is a DIRECT challenge to those who adhere to the cultural norm. Are you truly ever surprised that someone would react to your challenge?
And a word about the "personal insult" part of your comment. I would not be personally insulted, because I have never served our country in the military. But, if I had, and I had made sacrifices (either in mere time away from my family, or more seriously in losing a limb or some other serious injury), I WOULD be personally insulted that you would be so fickle as to not support me and the country that has supported and protected you.
EVERYTHING that I am or have today is the direct result of my government and my fellow citizens who fight to protect it. I feel that I have certain responsibilities as a citizen to repay that debt. The least of which is to stand and salute the greatness of my country and the men and women who protect it. You may disagree with this, but even if you do, my country STILL protects you. That is the nature of the freedom that America protects.
And finally, about Tim Wakefield:
1. You are right. I agreed with his comment more than I disagreed with it, so I am not offended by it. That seems like simple common sense. A lot of trendy lefties seem to forget that not everyone agrees with them.
2. When I read Wakefield's comments, I DID wish that he had not made them, as I would prefer not to know what baseball players' politics are. I don't really care what their favorite band is or what kind of car they drive either. All I want to know about Tim Wakefield is whether he can still be an effective starter this year and whether his shoulder is healed. That's it. So, when he makes these comments, he is putting his views out there to be commented on and criticized. That is unfortunate no matter what his viewpoint is, because I would rather talk about baseball when it comes to him instead of his politics. Similarly, I would not want to know who Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama root for. I just want to know what their politics are so that I can pick the best candidate.
But, when it comes to 9/11 Conspiracies, there is more at work than merely asking questions and demanding accountability. Most of the 9/11 conspiracists have a vested interest in anarchy and deconstructing our democratic system.
Mugro, you might want to consider restricting your comments to things you actually know something about.
Because when you don't, you end up showing everyone who does know something about the subject that you don't know shit.
Saluting the flag has been a cultural norm in America for as long as our country has been in existence.
Wrong.
The Pledge of Allegiance -- what people generally recite when they salute the flag -- was first used in public schools in 1892. Congress did not officially recognize the Pledge as the official national pledge until the end of 1945.
P.S. It was written by minister Francis Bellamy, a socialist.
What has happened to you in your lives that make you fight against civilized society?
People like us are trying to make society civilized.
The only way you could think you live in a civilized society is by keeping your head buried as deeply in the sand as possible. 50 million people with no access to health care, but billions of dollars to enrich defence contractors while torturing and killing innocent people is not my idea of civilization.
If only you realized that with every line you type, you display ever more of your pitiful ignorance, perhaps you would go away.
As you both spend a lot of time thinking, talking and writing about politics, you would think that you would have a better description of your political identity than "leftist" or "progressive."
Sorry. That's what it's called. It really doesn't matter what you think about the words.
You're absolutely right about one thing: peace is an age-old dream. Ending useless wars and living in a more peaceful society would be progress. Hence, progressive.
Thomas Jefferson, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King were all very successful in bringing about change because they were rational in their methods.
When you KNOW that standing for the national anthem is a majority cultural norm AND a symbol of political patriotism, the act of sitting is a DIRECT challenge to those who adhere to the cultural norm. Are you truly ever surprised that someone would react to your challenge?
Never surprised, no. I never said I was surprised. Disgusted, repulsed, irritated, and sometimes frightened by the violence that was spewed at me by "fellow fans". But never surprised.
Once again, it was not the national anthem, it was God Bless America.
The "land of the free" in which you get attacked if you sit while others stand. That's "our way of life" for ya.
Manny did not make the trip, thus making me like him even more.
57 comments:
Wakefield, on what he thought he might say to Bush:
"'Thanks for a great eight years.' I'm a big fan of his."
Good fucking lord. This is why I shouldn't read these stories. I want to think think the players I like have a bit of class.
(I wasn't planning on even acknowledging the visit, but I really liked the photo of Tiz.)
But no, there they are -- talking about the men and women at Walter Reed who were wounded while protecting the country -- come on, there can't be more than five or six people in the entire world over the age of 9 who still believe that shit.
Who knew they all played for the Red Sox?
Sigh.
Don't worry -- next year President Obama will be the host.
Don't worry -- next year President Obama will be the host.
I like the idea of winning another trophy, but there's not much about Obama to like, either.
Right on Manny. What is the over/under on how many times Fox mentions this per Red Sox game they cast?
*abstains from political commentary*
Except, fuck - I can't ignore this - what a complete asshole;
From the article: "Sorry ... Manny Ramirez isn't here, I guess his grandmother died again," Bush joked.
Real fucking joke.
Interestingly, Ramirez also missed the Sox' White House ceremony in 2005 in what Terry Francona called an "excused absence". A straight-faced Johnny Damon said at the 2005 ceremony that he heard Ramirez's grandmother was sick and Ramirez was with her in Miami.
HAHAHAHAHA TEH PREZIDENT IS SOOOO LOLZ!
Yeah, I always knew the commander-in-chief was a very serious man, but it's nice to see he's got a good sense of humor, too!
like, gag me.
Ian Browne, Brownie Points has starting lineups for the first two spring training games vs BC and Northwestern.
Lineup vs. BC:
Ellsbury CF
Pedroia 2B
Ortiz DH
Lowell 3B
Varitek C
Youkilis 1B
Lugo SS
Kielty RF
Moss LF
Pitchers: Beckett, Snyder, Lopez, Delcarmen Corey.
Lineup vs. Northeastern:
Crisp CF
Cora 2B
Drew RF
Ramirez DH
Casey 1B
Carter LF
Mirabelli C
Lowrie SS
Ginter 3B
Pitchers: Masterson, Hansen, Bowden, Breslow, Jones and Jackson.
heh, just realized that i totally FJM'ed my previous post....in a formatting sense anyway, not at all in a dry, sarcastic wit sort of way.
Hey, these guys have been playing a kids game and collecting millions of dollars in salary and endorsements for 8 years. If that's your complete focus---and professional athletes are nothing if not single-minded--sure its been a great 8 years...for them.
It's hard enough keeping sports heroes based on what they DO. Holding them to high standards based on what they say or believe about matters outside their narrow world-view seems a little unreasonable...naive, even.
Especially if they throw a knuckleball, for Chrissakes.
If that's your complete focus
Knowing Wakefield has done a ton of charity work while with the Sox, I'd be surprised if baseball is his sole focus. He appears tro have a heart. But if that's how he truly feels, then he's either (i) a very rich man who doesn't give a fuck about anyone else since he's got his or (ii) he's dumber than a wheelbarrow of mud.
Holding them to high standards based on what they say or believe about matters outside their narrow world-view seems a little unreasonable...naive, even.
I can be naive from time to time. ... But I don't really hold these guys to higher moral standards. I just don't like it when baseball players on my chosen team out themselves as admirers of war criminals.
Wakefield, on what he thought he might say to Bush:
"'Thanks for a great eight years.' I'm a big fan of his."
As I always say...worship them from afar and they will not disappoint you.
redsock said...
I just don't like it when baseball players on my chosen team out themselves as admirers of war criminals.
seems like a pretty low threshold, if ya ask me.
I can hardly wait 'til the games get underway, though. The snow and I are through. Except, each time I break it off, the snow come crawling back...won't you have me? I'll give you some more.
whatever. dump the criminals in the rivers running swift from the melting snow and play ball.
(ii) he's dumber than a wheelbarrow of mud.
I'm gonna go with that one. Animal killin' mofucker!
HA! One decent (and true) thing GWB has said in his life...about Dice-K..."one thing we have in common - we both have trouble answering questions in english"
Yeah, and D-K's spoken english is probably on par with his as well :P
Yeah Manny!
Hey, these guys have been playing a kids game and collecting millions of dollars in salary and endorsements for 8 years.
Jack, they don't play a kids' game, and you know it. That's the kind of lie the owners used to tell them to get them to work for peanuts.
and professional athletes are nothing if not single-minded
Huge assumption. They have to be highly focused, for sure, but they do not have to be single-minded. Professional athletes can (and usually do) have interests outside their own sport, as much as any other successful professional has outside their career.
They can certainly be expected to know a bit about what's going on in the world. It's not naive to think an athlete might have a brain in his head. It seems condescending to just assume he doesn't.
Redsock:
You are a typical liberal: if someone disagrees with your perspective on the world, that person is an idiot. That's the oldest b.s. line in the book: that liberals are smart and conservatives are stupid.
Let Wake and Schilling have their own political views. They are AMERICANS and their right to speak their political views is GUARANTEED by our Constitution.
There would be a whole lot less partisanship in this country and a lot more work being done if people would not automatically dismiss other people's views. Have an open mind and realize that some people see things differently than you.
Oh, and by the way, the assertion that you have to be rich to be a Republican is also a boat load of bull. That is a tired myth as well. There are lots of poor Republicans (I happen to be one) and there are plenty of rich Democrats. There are plenty of rich Communists too -- just ask Fidel and Raul.
With the intelligence and creativity that you bring to this blog, I am surprised that you would make such simplistic statements on those tired stereotypical grounds.
Let's get back to talking baseball, huh? Political talk on this blog isn't going to solve anything and it is just going to make us all miserable.
Maybe we can chock it up to Wakefield's back meds.
You are a typical liberal
I'm not a liberal.
Let Wake and Schilling have their own political views.
I'm not stopping them from expressing their opinions. You know that.
They are AMERICANS and their right to speak their political views is GUARANTEED by our Constitution.
As am I. And that's what I was doing. Which you also know. ... So what's your problem?
(P.S. I don't care that they are AMERICANS. They could be from anywhere. They could be from Mars. They can still express themselves. being American doesn't give them any extra rights (or fewer rights).)
Have an open mind and realize that some people see things differently than you.
Clearly, you can tell I realize other people have differing opinions. But:
At this point, anyone who supports the current occupant of the White House is either (a) unconcerned with anyone on the planet other than himself or herself, (b) desirous of living under fascism, or (c) stupid as shit. There are NO other choices. (Even ignorance is no excuse at this point.)
Oh, and by the way, the assertion that you have to be rich to be a Republican is also a boat load of bull.
I never said that. You know that. Why why bring it up?
There are lots of poor Republicans (I happen to be one)
You are a fool. To paraphrase one politician, that's like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
There are plenty of rich Communists too
And?
I am surprised that you would make such simplistic statements on those tired stereotypical grounds.
I didn't say any of the things you are claiming I said.
Let's get back to talking baseball, huh?
If you don't like the rare non-baseball discussion here, don't participate. Or leave a baseball comment.
Political talk on this blog isn't going to solve anything
I wasn't trying to "solve" anything.
Your reading comprehension is quite poor today.
That's it, Allan; by expressing your own opinions on your own website, you've gone too far.
Baseball is hereby cancelled. Nobody gets to have baseball. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Saying something conservative = Normal speech.
Saying something progressive = An attempt to outlaw all other types of speech.
Do I have it right?
Jere has posted some pictures of the event from a guy named DC.
Papi in a sidecar!
You are a typical liberal:
Shit Allan, when did you turn into a liberal? You've moved to the right and left me out here in leftyland by myself? Next time you make a major life change like that, please do let me know.
Let's get back to talking baseball, huh?
Says a man who just left a political speech on a baseball blog.
But what can we expect from a poor Republican.
That's it, Allan; by expressing your own opinions on your own website, you've gone too far.
Baseball is hereby cancelled. Nobody gets to have baseball. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Tee hee.
Redsock:
From my understanding of what you have written here an elsewhere you are:
1. Not a liberal (I was being generous in calling you that, but since you insist...). You are further left of that. What should I call you? I will leave the labelling of your political viewpoint up to you in the effort to avoid offending you.
2. Not an American anymore, having moved to Canada and renouncing our elections. You may still hold a U.S. passport, but physically and ideologically you have left the country some time ago.
Further, to address your response to me:
1. You stated the following: "But if that's how he truly feels, then he's either (i) a very rich man who doesn't give a fuck about anyone else since he's got his or (ii) he's dumber than a wheelbarrow of mud."
You mused that Wakefield must be making his comments because of the money that he has made. Thus, in a backhanded manner you insinuated rich=Republican. Or at least that making lots of money makes you a supporter of George Bush. However, the words "rich" and "Republican" are NOT synonyms. You don't have to be one in order to be the other.
2. That same quoted statement you said that he was either too rich or too stupid if he supports Bush. Then later you said: "At this point, anyone who supports the current occupant of the White House is either (a) unconcerned with anyone on the planet other than himself or herself, (b) desirous of living under fascism, or (c) stupid as shit. There are NO other choices. (Even ignorance is no excuse at this point.)"
You prove my point that you make broad, sweeping generalizations when you make political opinion statements with quotes like that.
Just because YOU don't like George Bush or the Iraq war does not mean that everyone should feel as you do. And emphasizing your earlier myopic viewpoint with this new quote doesn't help your case.
A legitimate argument can be made that Bush's Iraq policy will in the end be successful and will also be in the United State's best strategic interest. Your opinion to the contrary does not make your dim view FACT.
Fascism? How exactly do you define this word, and what empirical evidence do you have that George Bush should be labelled a fascist? Last I heard, we are having an election in which Bush will be replaced. Probably by Barack Obama. Is he fascist too?
There are some people in this country that believe that Bush is doing the right thing in fighting terrorism and ridding Iraq of a tyrant (a true fascist, if you want to see one). It sounds as if Wake is one of those. Does that mean that he is "unconcerned with anyone on the planet other than himself or herself"?? I don't think so.
Do Americans enjoy greater rights than people elsewhere? Yes, we do, by virtue of the rights guaranteed us under the United States Constitution. Not every country has granted its people such rights. You may say that people have inherent self evident rights, and you would be correct in saying that, but in only a few countries are those self evident rights PROTECTED by the government as they are here. A Chinese citizen may hold inherent rights as a human, but the Chinese government may not recognize those self-evident rights and still through him in jail for practicing a Christian religion or for gaining access to our internet.
You should stick to baseball, Redsock. Your political "logic" leaves a lot to be desired. And the "people's mob" that you may cloak yourself in does not disguise that fact.
So, let's talk baseball unless you want to argue some more.
A legitimate argument can be made that Bush's Iraq policy will in the end be successful and will also be in the United State's best strategic interest.
There's little doubt the occupation of Iraq is in the United State's best strategic interest. If you want to control the world's resources, it's best to control the countries where those resources are found.
Whether or not that is best for the people of the world who do not profit from the resources is a separate question.
I'd like to hear that "legitmate argument". Come on, poor Republican, let's hear it.
You should stick to baseball, Redsock.
You should stick to Free Republic, Mugro. You're too stupid and uninformed to argue about social issues with people who actually know what they're talking about.
Mugro, you do know that "liberal" refers to a particular political party in Canada, right? No, I suppose you don't.
A side note to Joy Nation other than Mugro:
If you're interested in hearing first-hand accounts of what the US is actually doing in Iraq, veterans and active servicepeople will be testifying about it from March 13-16.
The event is called "Winter Soldier" - it's organized by Iraq Veterans Against the War. You can listen on the radio, online or watch through the Dish Network.
It may be a watershed event for the peace movement. It's also a great way to support military resistance to the war - which is big, and growing. More information here.
Fascism? How exactly do you define this word
Get thee to a dictionary.
and what empirical evidence do you have that George Bush should be labelled a fascist?
Sound familar? ... I would also highly recommend Naomi Wolf's "The End of America". In a very readable style, she pinpoints 10 signs of a totalitarian state and provides numerous examples -- both from around the world in the 20th Century and in the US right now.
the "people's mob" that you may cloak yourself in
!
So, let's talk baseball unless you want to argue some more.
Sweetheart, this isn't an argument. I can talk all I want and then simply delete any response(s) from you.
Like the US, JoS ain't a democracy.
"liberal" refers to a particular political party in Canada
... who are little more than spineless cowards who sometimes say the right thing, but are busy kow-towing to the conservatives.
In other words, Democrats.
I'd like to hear that "legitmate argument". Come on, poor Republican, let's hear it.
Could he email it to you instead?
I'd like to hear that "legitmate argument". Come on, poor Republican, let's hear it.
Could he email it to you instead?
Ha! No thanks. I'll be happy to withdraw my request.
It doesn't matter, because Mugro won't respond to me anyway. He can always say he was only addressing you. On a blog read by a few thousand people.
Oh man.
I don't wanna sound like I don't give a shit, but like the South Park kids in the Crips episode, I am seriously staying out of this one and will just commence giggling at Flo in a sidecar.
I am seriously staying out of this one
I think we're about done anyway.
I do want to mention Wolf's book again. It's 155 pages (plus endnotes) and can be easily digested by anyone -- meaning, it's not dense or academic.
Even news junkies will find new stuff (or remember stuff they forgot about).
Plus it's published in Vermont!
Oh thank God. In the mean time I'm still trying to stockpile ammunition (not in terms of warmongering FYI) against those pin-striped blowhards and their "youze goiys" fanbase. I had to leave my Red Sox Facebook Application due to their sheer retardedness and unwillingness to listen to a decent argument before resorting to homophobic comments about me or Ortiz/Beckett or another God-damned 26 rings slogan.
Sorry I forgot to mention...any ideas outside of the obvious Red Sox are the greatest bit?
I told myself I wasn't wasting anymore time on this, but ...
A legitimate argument can be made that Bush's Iraq policy will in the end be successful and will also be in the United State's best strategic interest. Your opinion to the contrary does not make your dim view FACT.
"He don't know me very well, do he?" (/bugs)
Not only do I agree with your claim, but I'll go one step further:
Bush's Iraq policy has been a rousing success since the first day of the invasion.
People on the left have been saying for years that Bush is incompetent and he bungled Iraq. Wrong. Iraq has gone exactly the way they expected and exactly the way they wanted. If they had wanted a different result, they would have made another plans.
Look at all they have been able to accomplish in well under a decade. Bush/Cheney are extraordinarily competent.
A portion of mugro's latest post:
I only jumped in here because everyone said that excluding political discussion here was not a good idea.
I also jumped in to show that not everyone agrees with Alan and Laura's political views.
I will keep popping up from time to time, unless Alan deletes my posts, to remind people that there is another side to the story.
1. Many posters do not want political discussion here. For the most part, I agree. Therefore, when you see my next political comment, don't say anything. Presto -- no discussion!
2. If you are going to use my name, please spell it correctly. Thanks.
3. Remind us of the other side? I appreciate that, because sometimes CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and 99.998% of the rest of the US media get a little lazy.
I will keep popping up from time to time, unless Alan deletes my posts, to remind people that there is another side to the story.
Because otherwise they'd never know there was another side to the story! What with Allan being the only source of information and all.
Thank goodness Mugro keeps popping up to discuss the things he says he doesn't think should be discussed here.
I keep wondering, who forces him to read it, and who forces him to respond? That person really should cut it out.
I want to expand on something I wrote above.
Saying something conservative = Normal speech.
Saying something progressive = An attempt to outlaw all other types of speech.
When Wakefield says Bush has been great or Schilling stumps for McCain or Player X says he's glad US troops are fighting the evildoers, why is that NOT considered political commentary by most fans?
Why is my (or someone else's) comment about the player's statement the moment when things turn political?
Why am I accused of injecting politics into the discussion when it was the player who mentioned politics first?
Why are these players not criticized for taking a political stance?
Laura wondered the same thing when she would go to Yankee Stadium. There would be a military jet flyover, there would be a minute of silence before the national anthem for the men and women "defending our freedoms" and then everyone would sing God Bless America in the 7th inning.
This was all normal unpolitical stuff (supposedly), but if Laura chose to remain seated during the anthem or GBA, all of a sudden she was dragging politics into a baseball game?
In this recent example, a Red Sox player made a political statement -- and I, since I write the Red Sox, commented on it. Wakefield brought politics into the baseball discussion. It wasn't me.
Another thing -- what about Red Sox bloggers who express right-wing opinions? Why do they get a free pass? If you expect the baseball blogs you visit to be totally non-partisan, then a right-wing opinion should be just as offensive as a progressive opinion.
So why is posting "Remember 9/11" with eagles and flags alright but posting "Remember 9/11" with a plea to learn more about the attacks totally out of bounds?
Could mugro or another conservative out there explain these things to me?
Again:
Curt Schilling expresses opinion about John McCain = normal talk from a baseball player that does not express a political viewpoint one way or the other.
redsock expresses opinion about John McCain = highly partisan crap that should never be a part of a baseball discussion.
This is something that has long bothered me that no one has been able to explain.
A former Yankee-fan friend of mine was upset (mortified) that I didn't stand for GBA at the Stadium. We had a big talk about it later on.
He said I was bringing politics into a baseball game, where it didn't belong.
George Steinbrenner has military planes flying over the Stadium, we are asked to stand for a moment of silence "for the troops who are fighting to protect our way of life", and there are military marching bands.
I am sitting quietly.
But *I* am bringing politics into the game. Steinbrenner is neutral, I am the political one.
He didn't understand this at all.
Perhaps it's because my views were against the majority?
Curt Schilling expresses opinion about John McCain = normal talk from a baseball player that does not express a political viewpoint one way or the other.
In fairness, I don't think this reflects most people's take on Schilling. When he stumped for Bush in '04, many people were extremely upset and found it highly inappropriate. So much so that he was retracted his "everyone should vote for Bush" statement and changed it to "everyone should vote".
I think people know Schilling's blather is political, and is partisan.
But flag-waving, support the troop ribbons, GBA - people do see that as neutral, I think. (Incorrectly so, IMO.)
Redsock, you wanted me to respond, so I will. There is a lot to respond to!
"Saying something conservative = Normal speech.
Saying something progressive = An attempt to outlaw all other types of speech."
Saying something conservative is saying something conservative. What is normal, anyway??? Perhaps "normal" is centrist. Since your views are much farther to the left than most leftists, your idea of "centrist" is to the left of what other people consider centrist.
A centrist would salute the flag because he considers himself patriotic, but may have misgivings about the war and not support George Bush. A conservative might support the war AND consider it a personal insult to him that someone else did not salute the flag. Personally, I would absolutely salute the flag, but I would not be personally insulted if L-girl were with me at the game and did not stand for the national anthem. I would consider it insulting to the country and would shake my head in disappointment in her, but it is a free country and she has the right to "speak" in that manner.
"When Wakefield says Bush has been great or Schilling stumps for McCain or Player X says he's glad US troops are fighting the evildoers, why is that NOT considered political commentary by most fans?"
That IS political speech. If a player publicly endorses a candidate, campaigns for him, etc., that IS political speech, and he can be held accountable for it one way or another. Just as actors who stump for political causes are also held accountable for their views if they are bold enough to share them with the world.
Most Americans (center right and center left -- Republicans AND Democrats) will say that they support the troops. Many Democrats will say that they oppose the war but support the troops. I guess someone over in the anarchist/communist/socialist camp (or whatever you call yourself), would break with the rest of Americans and not even support the men and women who fight. That is your choice.
"Why is my (or someone else's) comment about the player's statement the moment when things turn political?"
As I said, the situation turned political when the player made the statement, not when you commented about it. In this day and age, the mere fact that the team went to the White House is unavoidably political. That opens the door to political discussion.
When Wakefield makes the comment he made, he is now making a public comment about his political viewpoints that is subject to comment or criticism by others.
"Why am I accused of injecting politics into the discussion when it was the player who mentioned politics first?"
I can only speak for myself here, but this entire news story lends itself to a political discussion. It was before you even posted about it. I don't have a problem with you making your comments in this context. I disagree with what you said, of course, but I do not think that it was out of bounds to comment on politics when the story of the day was the Red Sox going to the White House.
Before, when I infamously objected to your political commentary was more of a situation where your political comments came out of left field when there was not a political subtext already. That was what I thought was tiresome and unnecessary.
So, after you objected quite strongly to my comments, I decided that if it was ok for you to talk about your viewpoints politically, then it was fair game for me to offer mine. But, at the end of the day, as we always recognize, this is your blog and you don't have to post my comments here. (I hope that you would print this response, as you outright requested it!)
"Why are these players not criticized for taking a political stance?"
Baseball players are paid to play baseball, not to offer political commentary. We would have never heard of Curt Schilling if he were a car salesman. We would have never heard his political views either. Just because he is a famous ballplayer, does that give him more of a right for his views to be heard across the nation than I do? No, but this is just the way it is. Just because he is a ball player does not mean that he can never express his views. He DOES have to be accountable for what he DOES say, and if he doesn't want criticism of his views than he should keep them to himself.
"Laura wondered the same thing when she would go to Yankee Stadium. There would be a military jet flyover, there would be a minute of silence before the national anthem for the men and women "defending our freedoms" and then everyone would sing God Bless America in the 7th inning.
This was all normal unpolitical stuff (supposedly), but if Laura chose to remain seated during the anthem or GBA, all of a sudden she was dragging politics into a baseball game?"
She is being silly, but not "dragging politics into a baseball game."
"In this recent example, a Red Sox player made a political statement -- and I, since I write the Red Sox, commented on it. Wakefield brought politics into the baseball discussion. It wasn't me."
I agree.
"Another thing -- what about Red Sox bloggers who express right-wing opinions? Why do they get a free pass? If you expect the baseball blogs you visit to be totally non-partisan, then a right-wing opinion should be just as offensive as a progressive opinion."
Sure. I will give you that point. But, in my perfect world (which of course does not exist!), there would be no intersection of politics and baseball. Baseball would be the one thing that Fidel Castro and me could have in common. We could enjoy it together.
"So why is posting "Remember 9/11" with eagles and flags alright but posting "Remember 9/11" with a plea to learn more about the attacks totally out of bounds?"
Learn more about the attacks, or explore endless loony conspiracy theories?? There is an American patriotism that most Americans subscribe to. If you don't, that is fine, but don't whine about being made into a minority when it was your own choice to divert from the views of the majority of the country.
"Could mugro or another conservative out there explain these things to me?"
I hope my responses addressed your questions adequately.
"anarchist/communist/socialist camp (or whatever you call yourself),"
Wow, are you ever over your head. Progressive or leftist will do.
"would break with the rest of Americans and not even support the men and women who fight. That is your choice."
We do support them. We want each and every one of them home, alive, uninjured. The peace movement supports the troops in the truest way possible.
In fact, *only* the peace movement supports the troops. Everything else - stickers, magnets, standing at stadiums - is just hypocrisy.
"Learn more about the attacks, or explore endless loony conspiracy theories?? There is an American patriotism that most Americans subscribe to."
Do you think those are the only choices?
Do you think asking questions and getting more information is unpatriotic?
That's very sad. Thank goodness Americans like Thomas Jefferson, Susan B Anthony and Martin Luther King didn't subscribe to that narrow vision of patriotism.
Saying something conservative is saying something conservative. What is normal, anyway???
Normal = the majority view, mainstream, the default setting, a comment that seems like the common response. That's the reaction to a a conservative comment. A progressive comment is treated as radical and unpatriotic. I want to to why that is.
A conservative might support the war AND consider it a personal insult to him that someone else did not salute the flag.
This is what I don't get. I know you said you wouldn't take it personally, but why would someone take it personally? It has nothing to do with you. It is a personal decision. Sitting for the anthem should draw no more attention or comment than standing. They are both equally valid decisions. But standing is "normal" and sitting will cause idiots to scream curses at you (during the anthem, btw). ... Is it just because you are not following the majority?
That IS political speech. If a player publicly endorses a candidate, campaigns for him, etc., that IS political speech, and he can be held accountable for it one way or another.
So why don't you express the same annoyance at Wakefield? Is it only because you agree with him and disagree with me?
Most Americans (center right and center left -- Republicans AND Democrats) will say that they support the troops. Many Democrats will say that they oppose the war but support the troops. I guess someone over in the anarchist/communist/socialist camp (or whatever you call yourself), would break with the rest of Americans and not even support the men and women who fight. That is your choice.
Call me a progressive. "Support the troops" is an empty cliche --like "family values" -- that anyone can twist to mean anything. So it means nothing.
Many people think "support the troops" means "support the mission". Those people do not support what the troops are doing -- and want them to stop doing it.
When Wakefield makes the comment he made, he is now making a public comment about his political viewpoints that is subject to comment or criticism by others.
However I do not see your displeasure at Wakefield for bringing politics into baseball, only my response.
a situation where your political comments came out of left field when there was not a political subtext already. That was what I thought was tiresome and unnecessary.
I do not know what the situation was. Can you recall?
But, in my perfect world (which of course does not exist!), there would be no intersection of politics and baseball.
Politics has always been a part of baseball. What happened during the two World Wars, the anti-trust exemption, Jackie Robinson, Curt Flood, union-management battles, etc.
Learn more about the attacks, or explore endless loony conspiracy theories??
Subjective descriptions like this are never productive. There have been plenty of people who thought X was loony (like Watergate, for example) until they saw the unmistakable evidence. ... But to answer your question, the former.
Sitting for the anthem should draw no more attention or comment than standing. They are both equally valid decisions.
I would add only one comment to this.
From what I observe, standing for the God Bless America (it wasn't the national anthem!) when directed to by the PA announcer is not a decision.
Call it a reflexive reaction, or obedience, or going along with the crowd, or peer pressure, or what have you. I don't think most people make a conscious decision to stand when 50,000 (or 10) other people around them are standing.
Contrast the absolute nothing that is going on in the media right now over Wakefield's comment with what happened when Carlos Delgado voiced his opinion about the war in 2004.
L-Girl and Redsock:
You two live for this stuff, don't you? What has happened to you in your lives that make you fight against civilized society?
So many comments. Where to begin.
First of all, L-Girl: I can give you "leftist" but I won't allow you "progressive." The word "progressive" has long been co-opted by those on the left who want to glorify their position with a nifty sounding word. Progressive to me means "moving forward" or "advancing new ideas". The peace movement is certainly not a new concept. It is as old as the hills. No progression there. You aren't likely advancing new ideas either. Karl Marx and V. Lenin thought of most of what you two are talking about over a hundred years ago, so the ideas are neither new nor effective.
Come up with truly new ideas, and I will call you progressive. Trendy, yes, but progressive, no.
As you both spend a lot of time thinking, talking and writing about politics, you would think that you would have a better description of your political identity than "leftist" or "progressive."
Another response for L-Girl: asking questions and demanding accountability IS a major part of patriotism AND citizenship. We should always question the policies that our government pursues and the events that occur. To fail to do so would breach a duty that we have as citizens to observe and supervise our government.
As a matter of fact, one of the major deficiencies of thought process of the Democrat party today is the notion that government knows best for all of us and that government can provide all the answers. No, government is NOT always right, and we citizens MUST step in when government is either wrong or inefficient to correct the course of action.
But, when it comes to 9/11 Conspiracies, there is more at work than merely asking questions and demanding accountability. Most of the 9/11 conspiracists have a vested interest in anarchy and deconstructing our democratic system. This is the only rational explanation for their persistence in pursuing wild theories about how 9/11 came about, all with the undertone that our government is to blame.
I have read a lot of these theories, as a good citizen should (to ask questions and investigate allegations of government wrongdoing), but a reasonable person must at some point turn away from such theories as not being credible.
Thomas Jefferson, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King were all very successful in bringing about change because they were rational in their methods. There were plenty of more radical changemongerers on the scene when each of these people were living and operating. These three, however, were excellent examples of reasonable, rational citizens bringing about change WITHIN the system in which they lived. They separated out the true priorities from the more knee jerk emotional reactions of protest, and each succeeded in their cause because of it because they were able to appeal to other reasonable people in their respective communities to follow them and adopt their views. No 9/11 conspiracy theorist will ever be taken seriously in a leadership context.
Redsock: "progressive comments" are considered radical because they ARE by definition outside the mainstream. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot express yourself in a radical manner than then whine about why everyone calls you a radical.
Saluting the flag has been a cultural norm in America for as long as our country has been in existence. Offering respect to a king or other leader or a symbol of that leadership has been a cultural norm in every significant country or culture since ancient Egypt. When you decide to sit while others stand in respect, that is going to be considered radical. Perhaps your problem stems from your lack of understanding this simple concept.
When you KNOW that standing for the national anthem is a majority cultural norm AND a symbol of political patriotism, the act of sitting is a DIRECT challenge to those who adhere to the cultural norm. Are you truly ever surprised that someone would react to your challenge?
And a word about the "personal insult" part of your comment. I would not be personally insulted, because I have never served our country in the military. But, if I had, and I had made sacrifices (either in mere time away from my family, or more seriously in losing a limb or some other serious injury), I WOULD be personally insulted that you would be so fickle as to not support me and the country that has supported and protected you.
EVERYTHING that I am or have today is the direct result of my government and my fellow citizens who fight to protect it. I feel that I have certain responsibilities as a citizen to repay that debt. The least of which is to stand and salute the greatness of my country and the men and women who protect it. You may disagree with this, but even if you do, my country STILL protects you. That is the nature of the freedom that America protects.
And finally, about Tim Wakefield:
1. You are right. I agreed with his comment more than I disagreed with it, so I am not offended by it. That seems like simple common sense. A lot of trendy lefties seem to forget that not everyone agrees with them.
2. When I read Wakefield's comments, I DID wish that he had not made them, as I would prefer not to know what baseball players' politics are. I don't really care what their favorite band is or what kind of car they drive either. All I want to know about Tim Wakefield is whether he can still be an effective starter this year and whether his shoulder is healed. That's it. So, when he makes these comments, he is putting his views out there to be commented on and criticized. That is unfortunate no matter what his viewpoint is, because I would rather talk about baseball when it comes to him instead of his politics. Similarly, I would not want to know who Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama root for. I just want to know what their politics are so that I can pick the best candidate.
But, when it comes to 9/11 Conspiracies, there is more at work than merely asking questions and demanding accountability. Most of the 9/11 conspiracists have a vested interest in anarchy and deconstructing our democratic system.
Mugro, you might want to consider restricting your comments to things you actually know something about.
Because when you don't, you end up showing everyone who does know something about the subject that you don't know shit.
Saluting the flag has been a cultural norm in America for as long as our country has been in existence.
Wrong.
The Pledge of Allegiance -- what people generally recite when they salute the flag -- was first used in public schools in 1892. Congress did not officially recognize the Pledge as the official national pledge until the end of 1945.
P.S. It was written by minister Francis Bellamy, a socialist.
What has happened to you in your lives that make you fight against civilized society?
Education.
What has happened to you in your lives that make you fight against civilized society?
People like us are trying to make society civilized.
The only way you could think you live in a civilized society is by keeping your head buried as deeply in the sand as possible. 50 million people with no access to health care, but billions of dollars to enrich defence contractors while torturing and killing innocent people is not my idea of civilization.
If only you realized that with every line you type, you display ever more of your pitiful ignorance, perhaps you would go away.
As you both spend a lot of time thinking, talking and writing about politics, you would think that you would have a better description of your political identity than "leftist" or "progressive."
Sorry. That's what it's called. It really doesn't matter what you think about the words.
You're absolutely right about one thing: peace is an age-old dream. Ending useless wars and living in a more peaceful society would be progress. Hence, progressive.
Thomas Jefferson, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King were all very successful in bringing about change because they were rational in their methods.
Ha! You haven't read much history, have you?
When you KNOW that standing for the national anthem is a majority cultural norm AND a symbol of political patriotism, the act of sitting is a DIRECT challenge to those who adhere to the cultural norm. Are you truly ever surprised that someone would react to your challenge?
Never surprised, no. I never said I was surprised. Disgusted, repulsed, irritated, and sometimes frightened by the violence that was spewed at me by "fellow fans". But never surprised.
Once again, it was not the national anthem, it was God Bless America.
The "land of the free" in which you get attacked if you sit while others stand. That's "our way of life" for ya.
When you KNOW that standing for the national anthem is a majority cultural norm ...
In a democracy, free speech laws are not in place to protect someone who says "kittens are cute".
Free speech laws exist to protect minority views against the tyranny of the majority.
Post a Comment