Also watch the Liverpool-Everton game in particular for that second Salah goal. Just amazing. I was surprised, however, that no one managed to get themselves red carded with all the yellows they were handing out.
I was mostly enjoying watching LFC dismantle Everton. It is fun being LFC’s newest fan. They handle a press well, I like Konaté’s ability to disrupt passing lanes and Salah’s ability to absorb contact and still finish reminds me of 22 year old Lebron.
It’s all the things I like about basketball at a slightly slower pace and played by shorter people. (This is not an insult!!!)
Thank you! I can’t stand fandom gatekeeping. I mean, yes,keep having to google things like what is a centreback but if teams didn’t acquire new fans they would cease to exist!
It seems ridiculous to have a lockout at a time of year when there is no baseball being played to be locked out of. But it does stop new contracts. And, since an in-season strike seemed likely had there not been a lockout, it allowed the league to control when the work stoppage would happen by initiating it themselves.
Still, I'm not sure a lockout at a time when nothing is being done but signing new player contracts puts a tremendous amount of pressure on either side to compromise. Until the lockout threatens regular season games, which are where both sides make their money, I don't see that it moves the needle on negotiations all that much.
But, as Craig and other writers have pointed out, with it being framed as a "work stoppage" by the major media players it does look bad to regular fans who aren't paying that close attention. It's all part of the greater strategy.
Time to confess my ignorance here: I genuinely don’t know what option the owners had other than a lockout. Could they unilaterally extend the existing agreement or something?
They could have negotiated in good faith leading up to it, instead of making an insulting proposal they were 100% certain the players would reject, just so they could then blame the lockout they had already chosen to do on the players' rejection.
Yes. Or they could exist without a contract for the time being without declaring a lockout (the old terms would still apply as needed).
I get why they've done it, of course. It makes sense too and brings certainty. But MLB cannot do it and then pretend that it hasn't done it. They have to own the fact that they're the ones who shot first.
No, they can't "unilaterally extend" a collective bargaining agreement any more than the Union can do so. A collectively bargained agreement is just that, collectively agreed to not unilaterally done.
They could, however, have continued to negotiate without a lockout. And we have in the past had seasons played without an existing CBA as the sides continued to talk.
History note: the 1994 strike continued into 1995 as a lockout and NOT a strike. When management locked out the players and attempted to declare an impasse, the courts (via then District Judge Sonia Sotomayor) said that they did so improperly and ordered the spring training camps reopened. A settlement was achieved very shortly afterwards.
Glad to see you going in on Dems. I do still think you could stand to get more cynical about them though... E.g. i really think it's an open question if they as a party care as much about abortion rights as they do about fundraising off of abortion rights getting removed.
They're about to fundraise the shit out of this SCOTUS decision, and I guarantee you the campaign will come with ZERO substantive promises about how they plan to get back abortion rights.
Yeah, evangelicals (both men and women), which make up the bulk of the GOP base care deeply about the issue. That this only became an evangelical cause within the past few decades because of concerted efforts by reactionary political strategists seems to elide them.
Those single-issue voters don't think beyond their core belief that "life begins at conception." Very little can change that belief, and those voters are maybe half of the GOP's core constituency.
Also there is a lot of money in adoption for evangelical organizations. As long as it's babies they can brainwash. Those quiverfull people are really creepy.
True, they do worry about a shortage of children to adopt. But I think that's more at the higher levels of church leadership and less on the mind of the rank and file evangelicals.
Why do you think there have been so many children separated from parents at the southern border? International adoptions aren't as much of a thing now because countries have been cracking down on agencies for various reasons, sometimes complicated politics (Russia) and often just because children were being flat-out stolen and shipped to America, and not actually orphans at all. It's so gross.
There are some truly horrific stories about children adopted from places like the Democratic Republic of Congo by evangelicals. These are kids with tremendous PTSD from growing up during a civil war, brought to America and being raised by people using right-wing Christian parenting manuals that tell you to leave the child alone if they cry too much so that you're not rewarding them for acting out. When things inevitably go wrong, well...*shrug* what do you expect from those people?
They don't care about unwanted children. All they care about is punishing the sluts (who aren't their precious daughters, of course), and about making sure that white women are pumping out more white babies. Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
Live-in maid and babysitter for their white children. Plus they get brownie points for taking in a poor disadvantaged child and giving them a better life.
Rep. Lauren Underwood's Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, designed to address Black women's maternal mortality rate that's 2-3 times higher than that of white women, has 164 cosponsors. 0 are Republican.
They won't help out anyone else struggling with medical expenses. Pregnancy is no different. They'll just shrug and expect them to start a GoFundMe and if it fails to reach the goal, oh wrll. They can just die like that young man who couldn't raise enough money for insulin.
The rich people will be able to get abortions if they want, you're right there. Anyone without money will be trapped and desperate.
I agree completely. In the post I wanted to make the process point rather than the substantive one, but no, I do not for a moment think that the Democratic Party -- at least the people who run it -- care all that much about abortion rights beyond the fundraising and branding benefits it gives them.
Maybe. I think it was pretty clear that failing to win Senate seats in places like Maine and North Carolina doomed much of the agenda, and while perhaps they can and should be expending more political capital to push Manchin and Sinema to nuke the filibuster on voting rights, they just don’t have the leverage to get Manchin in particular on an abortion rights bill. Frankly, they’d have better luck convincing Murkowski to go independent, caucus with them and vote with them when she feels like it. I will say that while I can understand why Sinema got the nod back in 2018, if the party backs her against a primary challenge in ‘24, then this criticism holds more weight.
It's highly unlikely that the party is going to back Sinema. It's also worth noting that Sinema started out as a Green Party activist. Green: Getting Republicans Elected Every November.
I am totally 100 percent pro-choice, and I can't say that abortion rights is at the top of my to do list, either. Possibly because I am a man. Possibly because there are so many other things that have to come first, like the pandemic and global warming. And possibly because I live in NY state and cannot imagine abortion will ever be illegal again here.
In at least half the country it will be though. Pregnant people will be treated as nothing but brood mares and that makes me furious (as well as extremely relieved that I'm approaching menopause in a hurry).
Even a dead person can't have their organs used without consent and yet if a human has a uterus? Less bodily autonomy than a cadaver. It's infuriating.
Well, the dead person need not consent to the organ and tissue donation; that decision is made by the survivors. Usually, but not always, based on the pre-death desire of the donor.
Speaking of which: y'all don't need 'em where you are going. Tell your loved ones and sign up to be a donor. Donatelife.org or your states' DMV is usually the easiest way.
This illustrates another failure of the Democratic Party over the past decade or two: it has almost completely abandoned substantive operations in the states and has chosen to focus on national matters. While places with huge Democratic majorities already such as New York are fine, their power has withered dramatically in a great many states where they once were competitive.
Ohio for example is, in national elections, a 55-45 Republican-Democratic state at worst, but every single statewide office is held by the GOP and has been for many cycles and the legislature features GOP super majorities. Some of that is because of gerrymandering. A great deal of it, however, is that the party has not sufficiently or properly engaged in local elections and local matters, has not recruited or developed a candidate pipeline, and has been generally disorganized. It's really, really bad and it has and will continue to be bad for people who don't live on the coasts.
They can spam with the best of them though. Give $25 to one local candidate and your inbox / text messages will be forever filled with desperate pleas for money from candidates in states you've never even visited.
Here in Pennsylvania, I have called, emailed, and sent a Facebook message to the Democratic Party to offer to help. This is a swing state--they need all the help they can get. I have heard nothing. The Democratic Party is disorganized and weak. Pennsylvania will so go as Ohio. Damn shame.
Abortion will affect climate change and the pandemic. Increased poverty levels (which is what the inability to control the size of your family does) has a ripple effect throughout all of society. This is catastrophic. The "free" states e.g. California, New York, Connecticut, Washington--will carry the burden of the Gilead states.
Other things "have to come first" because no one is telling you that your bodily autonomy isn't important.
Also, if you think living in a blue state means abortion won't be illegal, you're going to be shocked when a GOP trifecta passes a nationwide abortion ban that's upheld 9-0 by SCOTUS in an opinion written by Justice OfBarrett.
You hit it on the head I think. Abortion won’t be illegal, just de facto illegal in poor/rural areas, and red states. Where Democrats, especially powerful Democrats, don’t live.
Incidentally this is why I sometimes argue with you when you seem to portray GOP as the principal antagonist. While I wouldn't go so far as to assert that Dems are just as bad, I do think the amount of daylight between them and GOP is less than you appear to think... i.e. they are nearly as guilty of blocking Good Things (TM) from happening, such as this very case.
Democratic women have been sounding the alarm on this for years. Democratic men...eh, that's chick stuff. Even so-called progressive men have been largely invisible when it comes to actually fighting for abortion rights or women's health. I distinctly remember the howling when women pointed out that not voting or voting third-party in 2016 was a vote to overturn Roe; we were accused of trying to "blackmail" people into voting for Clinton over the Supreme Court, or told not to worry our pretty little heads about it because Republicans didn't *really* want to overturn Roe.
Or it wouldn't be *that bad* because ladies can still use birth control, and if they do get pregnant of course they could always just give it up for adoption, and there would always be an exception for rape, incest, or endangering the health of the mother. Etc.
Kaine had a 100% rating from NARAL even at the time of his nomination as VP candidate. I suppose there's a longer discussion here if you're interested in having it (for instance: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/23/12259036/tim-kaine-vice-president-abortion-views-explained), but attempting reduce it to a dumb "gotcha" point like this largely doesn't convince most people that you actually take it seriously
It's not a gotcha when it fits a pattern... E.g. Pelosi and dem leadership in 2018 and 2020 throwing weight behind pro-life Dems, especially if it means stimying progressive candidates in primaries. You can't say you're okay with pro-life Dems and 2 years later convincingly say you're really worried about abortion rights... that circle doesn't square. And Pelosi, who represents this position, is a woman, also not fitting the above narrative.
Old school boomer/Gen X feminists are increasingly a big part of their leadership so I’m not sure how true that is. As men leave the party, women over all become more important to them.
I’m sure they think they’re being clever with abortion, because they’re all rich and their family members will always have access. They think they’re playing 12D chess and trying to triangulate.
But they forget the other side. If abortion rights are taken away, even if they’re technically still legal but harder to get, Democrats look useless. People stay home. Give up. Who votes for incompletence?
Regarding Feinsand, I hardly think that the MLB website is touting the MLB position is anything but what one should expect. I imagine the MLBPA association website (do they have one?) similarly touts their position. The only mistake would be thinking of MLB.com as a news organization rather than the owner's mouthpiece.
The difference is that MLB dot com and its reporters actually do tout their site as a news organization and, generally, report factual-based stories straightforwardly. Having institutional biases creep in or blind spots to exist in the coverage is one thing. Audacious propaganda like Feinsand's piece is quite another.
Ok, they do tout it as a news organization. And on an issue where there is no conflict of interest, such as the write up of the Padres Brewers game, it's fine to take it as such. But one would have to be gullible to take their word that they are a news organization for a subject where they have a clear conflict of interest such as labor negotiations.
Craig never said he was shocked by this….in fact, he made a specific point about how UNsurprising it is.
But there are a great many people who get regular news about their favorite baseball team from the MLB website, either by going to the website or from a daily newsletter. And it really appears no different than reading about sports on ESPN, CBS, FOX, etc. In fact I just received today’s newsletter from MLB providing a bunch of seemingly newsworthy stories about the lockdown.
Not sure if you noticed what’s going on in the world the past…I don’t know…100 years or so, but a lot of people don’t really give a critical eye to where their news comes from. And all these propo pieces from the owners are just meant to poison the “greedy” players in the eyes of the public (yet again).
Of course I've noticed owners are trying to influence the public, and that such has been going on for a long time. I just don't think it's terrible noteworthy for the same reason the sun coming up every day isn't terribly noteworthy. Naturally MLB dot com is going to put a pro MLB spin on things.
It’s noteworthy in that (as mentioned) a lot of people probably don’t think of baseball news on the MLB website as owner-driven drivel, when it’s usually just presented as news & highlights
I fully expect all the coverage of the lockout to divide between "the players are greedy" and "billionaires vs millionaires." I think a lot of people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that the people who earn the money should get to keep the money. It doesn't matter that the money is a lot more than any of us will ever see. The players are the ones making the sport rich, and therefore the players should get the bulk of the money. That seems simple enough to me, but that argument won't sway many who continue to insist that the players are being greedy and and should be thankful that are being paid to play a game.
I am still expecting this to last into the season. The owners have dug their hole and I don't think want to get out of it.
Agreed that some of it comes from a place of thinking that players should be grateful to get paid at all to play a game (ignoring how hard most players work doing non-fun things). I also think a subset of "pro-owner" fans like to play GM, so they get worked up when their team "can't afford" to sign a free agent, or when a particular signing blows up. But they ignore the front end where especially pre-arb players are underpaid relative to the value they provide on the field.
Not to mention that many minor leaguers, to all intents and purposes, *are* playing just for love of the game, in an economic structure that leaves them open to physical, emotional, financial, and sexual abuse of the sort that is just now really coming to light. (To be fair, I haven't seen any reports of sexual abuse in MiLB comparable to those in junior hockey, and even up to victimizing players fast-tracked to the NHL, but I worry about it, a lot, especially in light of the living conditions reported for many MiLB players last year.)
-- I believe it was in Marvin Miller's memoir where I read that when negotiating the service time required for a player to reach free agency, A's owner Charlie Finley proposed making all players free agents when their contracts expire. Miller was aghast, because he knew that if all players could get free agency, it would serve to depress salaries, because of the increased supply of players available on the market. However, because it was Finley making the proposal, and fellow owners didn't like the guy, this proposal was never seriously entertained. This revealed to me how little the owners understand economics, and how Miller knew how to get players higher salaries.
-- As a White Sox fan, I certainly enjoyed watching Hoyt pitch, but I never saw him in person at Comiskey. In 1985, I stayed down in Carbondale for the summer, prepping for my glorious year as sports director at my college radio station. A friend with a car (!) asked if I'd be interested in going to St. Louis to catch a Cardinals game. So we tooled over to Busch Stadium, and saw Lamarr Hoyt battle Joaquin Andujar in a great pitcher's duel. We managed to get tickets at the window about three rows from the top. Hoyt and Andujar were having great seasons and the packed ballpark made for a great atmosphere. The Pads came out on top, 2-0, with Hoyt and Rich Gossage combining on a 3-hitter.
Finley's proposal went a step further into something that Miller and the Union wouldn't back: every contract should be a one-year contract making players free agents each season.
Sometimes I try to think how that would have played out. My guess is that the max salary would be *significantly* higher with the bidding for Soto, Harper, Acuna, Tatis, Ohtani, Guerrero, etc. going through the roof, but at the same time the average salary dropping through the floor. But obviously that is unknowable.
Nobody calls it that except whoever wrote that part of the wiki. NOBODY. The people paid to do such things call it "American Family Field", the fans at large still call it Miller Park, and the REAL fans (haha) call it The Keg.
THANK YOU FOR CORRECTLY USING "BEGGING THE QUESTION."
Literally every other time I've heard that phrase for months no one has been begging anything, they have been posing the question or raising the question, but not begging it and the sloppiness is maddening.
Ok! I didn't have to post this! Craig, I can't second this enough. How many minutes of my life have I squandered trying to fight this battle... we're at the point where actual linguists are surrendering, based on what I've read.
Opening Free Thursday with the lockout and closing with a long meditation/screed (screeditation?) on abortion politics? Those discount subscriptions are just gonna ROLL in!
Speaking of the lockout, a question from someone who knows nothing about labor negotiations to anyone(s) here who does: is it permitted/does it make sense for the PA, individual players, or both to keep trying to have public contact with the owners to demonstrate it's not them walking away from the table? "Hey, Dodgers - it's Freddie Freeman ... I'm interested in hearing more about that contract we were discussing. Call me maybe?"
If you don't, I feel like it's how the current Senate (ineffectually, IDMCjHO) treats the filibuster: as soon as one is threatened everyone acts like it's in place. Make the MFer talk - or in the owners' case, not talk.
That I'm not sure. If it was open and informal I don't know.
But I'd guess they would still be asked by the players union negotiating team not to discuss labor matters because it would muddy the waters. They could still talk about how their conditioning was going and rehab and such to the public in general, and thus teams would have a sense of what their own players were doing from that channel without having them at team facilities.
While I can imagine there are some basic things players and teams can discuss like "hey, I got a package sent to the stadium can I come get it?" they are not permitted to have substantive business communication at all. The only communication that can be had are labor negotiations between the designated representatives.
Fair enough. It just feels like the players need to do whatever they can to keep reminding people that they still want to play and it's the owners preventing that from happening. CAVEAT: I am not a labor lawyer (obviously).
That I'm pretty sure they can do, because it's working the public. They may not be able to use team facilities but they can certainly post on social media about how they are practicing with other players or working out at a college or something. Make it obvious that they want to play and are preparing to once the owners end the lockout.
I am also not a labor lawyer, but I work in labor. I think players would be fine making general public statements like the one you mentioned, but actually trying to circumvent the lockout seems like it would open up the MLBPA for ULP charges from the owners.
Liverpool vs Everton is generally the Merseyside Derby.
A lot of great stuff on the list of baseball books. Baseball 100 was written by a man with obvious talent and a love of the game. I'm sure I would enjoy it, could I get past my disappointment at his Paterno book. Wasn't a huge fan of the James/Neyer books or any book James wrote after the Abstracts.
It will be fun to see if he's TOO intense for Mets fans. Because if anyone is, it's Max.
Also watch the Liverpool-Everton game in particular for that second Salah goal. Just amazing. I was surprised, however, that no one managed to get themselves red carded with all the yellows they were handing out.
With every yellow, I kept yelling. "he just got punished more than Pickford did last year!"
Those Derbies make me just a joy to be around. They're like me all hopped up on playoff baseball.
I was mostly enjoying watching LFC dismantle Everton. It is fun being LFC’s newest fan. They handle a press well, I like Konaté’s ability to disrupt passing lanes and Salah’s ability to absorb contact and still finish reminds me of 22 year old Lebron.
It’s all the things I like about basketball at a slightly slower pace and played by shorter people. (This is not an insult!!!)
All are welcome.
Thank you! I can’t stand fandom gatekeeping. I mean, yes,keep having to google things like what is a centreback but if teams didn’t acquire new fans they would cease to exist!
Set aside any preconceived notions you might have about the Men in Blazers, but I found this to be really, really good writing on the Derby:
https://rogerbennett.bulletin.com/437821967948841
Thank you for the link! I really appreciated the background and history.
I’m clearly being pedantic here… the Liverpool-Everton derby is technically known as the “Merseyside Derby”.
I came here to give a friendly reminder that it's pronounced "Mer see side dah bee."
So, Craig has successfully launched "Cup of Tea"....
Manfred made him do it.\
It seems ridiculous to have a lockout at a time of year when there is no baseball being played to be locked out of. But it does stop new contracts. And, since an in-season strike seemed likely had there not been a lockout, it allowed the league to control when the work stoppage would happen by initiating it themselves.
Still, I'm not sure a lockout at a time when nothing is being done but signing new player contracts puts a tremendous amount of pressure on either side to compromise. Until the lockout threatens regular season games, which are where both sides make their money, I don't see that it moves the needle on negotiations all that much.
But, as Craig and other writers have pointed out, with it being framed as a "work stoppage" by the major media players it does look bad to regular fans who aren't paying that close attention. It's all part of the greater strategy.
I don’t think people care until it affects the plating season.
Time to confess my ignorance here: I genuinely don’t know what option the owners had other than a lockout. Could they unilaterally extend the existing agreement or something?
They could have negotiated in good faith leading up to it, instead of making an insulting proposal they were 100% certain the players would reject, just so they could then blame the lockout they had already chosen to do on the players' rejection.
Yes. Or they could exist without a contract for the time being without declaring a lockout (the old terms would still apply as needed).
I get why they've done it, of course. It makes sense too and brings certainty. But MLB cannot do it and then pretend that it hasn't done it. They have to own the fact that they're the ones who shot first.
I dunno - it worked for Han Solo. Less so for poor old Greedo.
Did you just compare the owners to HAN SOLO? My inner 14 year old Socialist nerd is filled with despair. :)
No, they can't "unilaterally extend" a collective bargaining agreement any more than the Union can do so. A collectively bargained agreement is just that, collectively agreed to not unilaterally done.
They could, however, have continued to negotiate without a lockout. And we have in the past had seasons played without an existing CBA as the sides continued to talk.
History note: the 1994 strike continued into 1995 as a lockout and NOT a strike. When management locked out the players and attempted to declare an impasse, the courts (via then District Judge Sonia Sotomayor) said that they did so improperly and ordered the spring training camps reopened. A settlement was achieved very shortly afterwards.
They could have *not* locked the players out. Oh yes, and started negotiating in good faith.
Glad to see you going in on Dems. I do still think you could stand to get more cynical about them though... E.g. i really think it's an open question if they as a party care as much about abortion rights as they do about fundraising off of abortion rights getting removed.
They're about to fundraise the shit out of this SCOTUS decision, and I guarantee you the campaign will come with ZERO substantive promises about how they plan to get back abortion rights.
Susan Collins is very *concerned* about getting those votes, you know... spot on.
I agree GOP has a distinct lack of sincerity on the issue, but I'd bet they care a LOT more about abortion than Democrats do.
Yeah, evangelicals (both men and women), which make up the bulk of the GOP base care deeply about the issue. That this only became an evangelical cause within the past few decades because of concerted efforts by reactionary political strategists seems to elide them.
Yes, GOP politicians may not all be true believers, but their evangelical voters sure are.
Those single-issue voters don't think beyond their core belief that "life begins at conception." Very little can change that belief, and those voters are maybe half of the GOP's core constituency.
Also there is a lot of money in adoption for evangelical organizations. As long as it's babies they can brainwash. Those quiverfull people are really creepy.
True, they do worry about a shortage of children to adopt. But I think that's more at the higher levels of church leadership and less on the mind of the rank and file evangelicals.
Why do you think there have been so many children separated from parents at the southern border? International adoptions aren't as much of a thing now because countries have been cracking down on agencies for various reasons, sometimes complicated politics (Russia) and often just because children were being flat-out stolen and shipped to America, and not actually orphans at all. It's so gross.
There are some truly horrific stories about children adopted from places like the Democratic Republic of Congo by evangelicals. These are kids with tremendous PTSD from growing up during a civil war, brought to America and being raised by people using right-wing Christian parenting manuals that tell you to leave the child alone if they cry too much so that you're not rewarding them for acting out. When things inevitably go wrong, well...*shrug* what do you expect from those people?
They don't care about unwanted children. All they care about is punishing the sluts (who aren't their precious daughters, of course), and about making sure that white women are pumping out more white babies. Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
Live-in maid and babysitter for their white children. Plus they get brownie points for taking in a poor disadvantaged child and giving them a better life.
Or the mothers will die, and they won't care.
Rep. Lauren Underwood's Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, designed to address Black women's maternal mortality rate that's 2-3 times higher than that of white women, has 164 cosponsors. 0 are Republican.
They. Don't Care.
They won't help out anyone else struggling with medical expenses. Pregnancy is no different. They'll just shrug and expect them to start a GoFundMe and if it fails to reach the goal, oh wrll. They can just die like that young man who couldn't raise enough money for insulin.
The rich people will be able to get abortions if they want, you're right there. Anyone without money will be trapped and desperate.
I agree completely. In the post I wanted to make the process point rather than the substantive one, but no, I do not for a moment think that the Democratic Party -- at least the people who run it -- care all that much about abortion rights beyond the fundraising and branding benefits it gives them.
Maybe. I think it was pretty clear that failing to win Senate seats in places like Maine and North Carolina doomed much of the agenda, and while perhaps they can and should be expending more political capital to push Manchin and Sinema to nuke the filibuster on voting rights, they just don’t have the leverage to get Manchin in particular on an abortion rights bill. Frankly, they’d have better luck convincing Murkowski to go independent, caucus with them and vote with them when she feels like it. I will say that while I can understand why Sinema got the nod back in 2018, if the party backs her against a primary challenge in ‘24, then this criticism holds more weight.
It's highly unlikely that the party is going to back Sinema. It's also worth noting that Sinema started out as a Green Party activist. Green: Getting Republicans Elected Every November.
I am totally 100 percent pro-choice, and I can't say that abortion rights is at the top of my to do list, either. Possibly because I am a man. Possibly because there are so many other things that have to come first, like the pandemic and global warming. And possibly because I live in NY state and cannot imagine abortion will ever be illegal again here.
In at least half the country it will be though. Pregnant people will be treated as nothing but brood mares and that makes me furious (as well as extremely relieved that I'm approaching menopause in a hurry).
Even a dead person can't have their organs used without consent and yet if a human has a uterus? Less bodily autonomy than a cadaver. It's infuriating.
Well, the dead person need not consent to the organ and tissue donation; that decision is made by the survivors. Usually, but not always, based on the pre-death desire of the donor.
Speaking of which: y'all don't need 'em where you are going. Tell your loved ones and sign up to be a donor. Donatelife.org or your states' DMV is usually the easiest way.
This illustrates another failure of the Democratic Party over the past decade or two: it has almost completely abandoned substantive operations in the states and has chosen to focus on national matters. While places with huge Democratic majorities already such as New York are fine, their power has withered dramatically in a great many states where they once were competitive.
Ohio for example is, in national elections, a 55-45 Republican-Democratic state at worst, but every single statewide office is held by the GOP and has been for many cycles and the legislature features GOP super majorities. Some of that is because of gerrymandering. A great deal of it, however, is that the party has not sufficiently or properly engaged in local elections and local matters, has not recruited or developed a candidate pipeline, and has been generally disorganized. It's really, really bad and it has and will continue to be bad for people who don't live on the coasts.
Dems can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. They also need to convince people that judicial elections MATTER.
They can spam with the best of them though. Give $25 to one local candidate and your inbox / text messages will be forever filled with desperate pleas for money from candidates in states you've never even visited.
Here in Pennsylvania, I have called, emailed, and sent a Facebook message to the Democratic Party to offer to help. This is a swing state--they need all the help they can get. I have heard nothing. The Democratic Party is disorganized and weak. Pennsylvania will so go as Ohio. Damn shame.
Abortion will affect climate change and the pandemic. Increased poverty levels (which is what the inability to control the size of your family does) has a ripple effect throughout all of society. This is catastrophic. The "free" states e.g. California, New York, Connecticut, Washington--will carry the burden of the Gilead states.
And that's the problem.
Other things "have to come first" because no one is telling you that your bodily autonomy isn't important.
Also, if you think living in a blue state means abortion won't be illegal, you're going to be shocked when a GOP trifecta passes a nationwide abortion ban that's upheld 9-0 by SCOTUS in an opinion written by Justice OfBarrett.
You hit it on the head I think. Abortion won’t be illegal, just de facto illegal in poor/rural areas, and red states. Where Democrats, especially powerful Democrats, don’t live.
Incidentally this is why I sometimes argue with you when you seem to portray GOP as the principal antagonist. While I wouldn't go so far as to assert that Dems are just as bad, I do think the amount of daylight between them and GOP is less than you appear to think... i.e. they are nearly as guilty of blocking Good Things (TM) from happening, such as this very case.
Democratic women have been sounding the alarm on this for years. Democratic men...eh, that's chick stuff. Even so-called progressive men have been largely invisible when it comes to actually fighting for abortion rights or women's health. I distinctly remember the howling when women pointed out that not voting or voting third-party in 2016 was a vote to overturn Roe; we were accused of trying to "blackmail" people into voting for Clinton over the Supreme Court, or told not to worry our pretty little heads about it because Republicans didn't *really* want to overturn Roe.
Or it wouldn't be *that bad* because ladies can still use birth control, and if they do get pregnant of course they could always just give it up for adoption, and there would always be an exception for rape, incest, or endangering the health of the mother. Etc.
I am again reminded of this article: https://jezebel.com/this-is-how-the-jezebel-staff-is-voting-1788703930
The 2016 female Democratic presidential candidate choosing an anti-abortion man for her running mate does not quite fit your narrative.
Kaine had a 100% rating from NARAL even at the time of his nomination as VP candidate. I suppose there's a longer discussion here if you're interested in having it (for instance: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/23/12259036/tim-kaine-vice-president-abortion-views-explained), but attempting reduce it to a dumb "gotcha" point like this largely doesn't convince most people that you actually take it seriously
It's not a gotcha when it fits a pattern... E.g. Pelosi and dem leadership in 2018 and 2020 throwing weight behind pro-life Dems, especially if it means stimying progressive candidates in primaries. You can't say you're okay with pro-life Dems and 2 years later convincingly say you're really worried about abortion rights... that circle doesn't square. And Pelosi, who represents this position, is a woman, also not fitting the above narrative.
Old school boomer/Gen X feminists are increasingly a big part of their leadership so I’m not sure how true that is. As men leave the party, women over all become more important to them.
I’m sure they think they’re being clever with abortion, because they’re all rich and their family members will always have access. They think they’re playing 12D chess and trying to triangulate.
But they forget the other side. If abortion rights are taken away, even if they’re technically still legal but harder to get, Democrats look useless. People stay home. Give up. Who votes for incompletence?
Regarding Feinsand, I hardly think that the MLB website is touting the MLB position is anything but what one should expect. I imagine the MLBPA association website (do they have one?) similarly touts their position. The only mistake would be thinking of MLB.com as a news organization rather than the owner's mouthpiece.
The difference is that MLB dot com and its reporters actually do tout their site as a news organization and, generally, report factual-based stories straightforwardly. Having institutional biases creep in or blind spots to exist in the coverage is one thing. Audacious propaganda like Feinsand's piece is quite another.
Ok, they do tout it as a news organization. And on an issue where there is no conflict of interest, such as the write up of the Padres Brewers game, it's fine to take it as such. But one would have to be gullible to take their word that they are a news organization for a subject where they have a clear conflict of interest such as labor negotiations.
Fox News says they are a news organization too. Are you shocked every time they have biased reporting?
Craig never said he was shocked by this….in fact, he made a specific point about how UNsurprising it is.
But there are a great many people who get regular news about their favorite baseball team from the MLB website, either by going to the website or from a daily newsletter. And it really appears no different than reading about sports on ESPN, CBS, FOX, etc. In fact I just received today’s newsletter from MLB providing a bunch of seemingly newsworthy stories about the lockdown.
Not sure if you noticed what’s going on in the world the past…I don’t know…100 years or so, but a lot of people don’t really give a critical eye to where their news comes from. And all these propo pieces from the owners are just meant to poison the “greedy” players in the eyes of the public (yet again).
Of course I've noticed owners are trying to influence the public, and that such has been going on for a long time. I just don't think it's terrible noteworthy for the same reason the sun coming up every day isn't terribly noteworthy. Naturally MLB dot com is going to put a pro MLB spin on things.
It’s noteworthy in that (as mentioned) a lot of people probably don’t think of baseball news on the MLB website as owner-driven drivel, when it’s usually just presented as news & highlights
FYI: The Union's website is mlbplayers.com
Hit the nail on the head about Dem leadership, although their messaging generally sucks.
I fully expect all the coverage of the lockout to divide between "the players are greedy" and "billionaires vs millionaires." I think a lot of people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that the people who earn the money should get to keep the money. It doesn't matter that the money is a lot more than any of us will ever see. The players are the ones making the sport rich, and therefore the players should get the bulk of the money. That seems simple enough to me, but that argument won't sway many who continue to insist that the players are being greedy and and should be thankful that are being paid to play a game.
I am still expecting this to last into the season. The owners have dug their hole and I don't think want to get out of it.
If only more people read Marx they'd understand a lot...
Agreed that some of it comes from a place of thinking that players should be grateful to get paid at all to play a game (ignoring how hard most players work doing non-fun things). I also think a subset of "pro-owner" fans like to play GM, so they get worked up when their team "can't afford" to sign a free agent, or when a particular signing blows up. But they ignore the front end where especially pre-arb players are underpaid relative to the value they provide on the field.
Not to mention that many minor leaguers, to all intents and purposes, *are* playing just for love of the game, in an economic structure that leaves them open to physical, emotional, financial, and sexual abuse of the sort that is just now really coming to light. (To be fair, I haven't seen any reports of sexual abuse in MiLB comparable to those in junior hockey, and even up to victimizing players fast-tracked to the NHL, but I worry about it, a lot, especially in light of the living conditions reported for many MiLB players last year.)
Two comments for the price of one:
-- I believe it was in Marvin Miller's memoir where I read that when negotiating the service time required for a player to reach free agency, A's owner Charlie Finley proposed making all players free agents when their contracts expire. Miller was aghast, because he knew that if all players could get free agency, it would serve to depress salaries, because of the increased supply of players available on the market. However, because it was Finley making the proposal, and fellow owners didn't like the guy, this proposal was never seriously entertained. This revealed to me how little the owners understand economics, and how Miller knew how to get players higher salaries.
-- As a White Sox fan, I certainly enjoyed watching Hoyt pitch, but I never saw him in person at Comiskey. In 1985, I stayed down in Carbondale for the summer, prepping for my glorious year as sports director at my college radio station. A friend with a car (!) asked if I'd be interested in going to St. Louis to catch a Cardinals game. So we tooled over to Busch Stadium, and saw Lamarr Hoyt battle Joaquin Andujar in a great pitcher's duel. We managed to get tickets at the window about three rows from the top. Hoyt and Andujar were having great seasons and the packed ballpark made for a great atmosphere. The Pads came out on top, 2-0, with Hoyt and Rich Gossage combining on a 3-hitter.
Finley's proposal went a step further into something that Miller and the Union wouldn't back: every contract should be a one-year contract making players free agents each season.
Sometimes I try to think how that would have played out. My guess is that the max salary would be *significantly* higher with the bidding for Soto, Harper, Acuna, Tatis, Ohtani, Guerrero, etc. going through the roof, but at the same time the average salary dropping through the floor. But obviously that is unknowable.
I forgot about that part. Yeah, that would be a no go, but Finley was definitely thinking about how it would depress salaries.
Yep. Neither Union nor MLB want a fully free market.
There was already plenty of collusion going on during the first 15 years of free agency. This system probably would have made it even worse.
I looked up the new name of Miller Park and Wikipedia tells me that people commonly refer to it as "Am-Fam Field".
I’m not in Milwaukee, but I’m pretty sure more people commonly refer to it as “Miller Park.”
Nobody calls it that except whoever wrote that part of the wiki. NOBODY. The people paid to do such things call it "American Family Field", the fans at large still call it Miller Park, and the REAL fans (haha) call it The Keg.
THANK YOU FOR CORRECTLY USING "BEGGING THE QUESTION."
Literally every other time I've heard that phrase for months no one has been begging anything, they have been posing the question or raising the question, but not begging it and the sloppiness is maddening.
Ok! I didn't have to post this! Craig, I can't second this enough. How many minutes of my life have I squandered trying to fight this battle... we're at the point where actual linguists are surrendering, based on what I've read.
Opening Free Thursday with the lockout and closing with a long meditation/screed (screeditation?) on abortion politics? Those discount subscriptions are just gonna ROLL in!
As will those angry unsubscribe messages from lockout fetishists upset that Craig starts recapping games when they start up in June
Speaking of the lockout, a question from someone who knows nothing about labor negotiations to anyone(s) here who does: is it permitted/does it make sense for the PA, individual players, or both to keep trying to have public contact with the owners to demonstrate it's not them walking away from the table? "Hey, Dodgers - it's Freddie Freeman ... I'm interested in hearing more about that contract we were discussing. Call me maybe?"
If you don't, I feel like it's how the current Senate (ineffectually, IDMCjHO) treats the filibuster: as soon as one is threatened everyone acts like it's in place. Make the MFer talk - or in the owners' case, not talk.
I believe there legally can't be any contact except for negotiating teams. At least that's how it worked with the hockey lockouts.
Even in the media, social or otherwise? #AskingNotArguing
That I'm not sure. If it was open and informal I don't know.
But I'd guess they would still be asked by the players union negotiating team not to discuss labor matters because it would muddy the waters. They could still talk about how their conditioning was going and rehab and such to the public in general, and thus teams would have a sense of what their own players were doing from that channel without having them at team facilities.
While I can imagine there are some basic things players and teams can discuss like "hey, I got a package sent to the stadium can I come get it?" they are not permitted to have substantive business communication at all. The only communication that can be had are labor negotiations between the designated representatives.
Fair enough. It just feels like the players need to do whatever they can to keep reminding people that they still want to play and it's the owners preventing that from happening. CAVEAT: I am not a labor lawyer (obviously).
That I'm pretty sure they can do, because it's working the public. They may not be able to use team facilities but they can certainly post on social media about how they are practicing with other players or working out at a college or something. Make it obvious that they want to play and are preparing to once the owners end the lockout.
And they have! https://twitter.com/craigcalcaterra/status/1466432805789970432
I am also not a labor lawyer, but I work in labor. I think players would be fine making general public statements like the one you mentioned, but actually trying to circumvent the lockout seems like it would open up the MLBPA for ULP charges from the owners.
Liverpool vs Everton is generally the Merseyside Derby.
A lot of great stuff on the list of baseball books. Baseball 100 was written by a man with obvious talent and a love of the game. I'm sure I would enjoy it, could I get past my disappointment at his Paterno book. Wasn't a huge fan of the James/Neyer books or any book James wrote after the Abstracts.
hey ! she WAS arrested... Law & Order, baby !!!