New pickoff strategies, hurt arms, sailor boys, Angelos, a Tito tooth update, presidential candidates, heartless Republicans, my billionaire neighbor, DNA, and Stephen Spielberg
I know someone on a film related site who HATES Spielberg. Hates every one of his movies. So next to him, you are doing okay. (Film people on the internet make baseball fans seem rational sometimes.)
Damn if Super 8 isn't a guilty pleasure for me. Elle Fanning "rehearsing" her scene at the train station (and making all the boys cry) gets me every time.
I loved that in the theater, and at the time thought JJ was a visionary. Then I saw Star Trek and his two Star Wars films, and changed my mind. And then I watched Alias and halfway changed it back.
I consider Spielberg to be the contemporary equivalent of Shakespeare. A bunch of truly great stuff, a lot of mediocre material, and a few eminently forgettable things.
I too often have *no idea* who a producer or director is for a movie unless it’s one of those things where it’s promoted to the nth degree.
Or discussed by people so much it’s hard to miss.
The one exception is Michael Bay. I am aware that I can sniff out a Michael Bay film a mile away, and have been successful at avoiding them (though unfortunately, that had to be a learned response after unknowingly viewing one of his efforts many years ago—but at least my olfactory systems have been adequately trained now to prevent any future ingestion errors).
I'm happy to take your money if you want to give it to me Jay -- and unless you cross the line into bigotry that you're toeing at the moment with your "groomer" comment, you're free to be here and say whatever you like -- but there is absolutely no one forcing you to open this "daily Cup of Leftist propaganda," so no one is gonna feel sorry for you. What I would suggest, however, is that if you take issue with something I say, you meet it with a cogent argument as opposed to a pathetic stab at whataboutism.
We're more divided than ever, in part, because Republicans and conservatives say things like "it'd be economically better for that child who suffered abuse to die than to get medical care." I mean, who the actual fuck says that? Oh wait, as I explained today, it was a Republican. Republicans are also the people who are attempting to push trans people out of public life and to deprive them of healthcare, all on the basis of a completely fabricated, hateful scaremongering tactic for which they -- ironically as fuck given the previous healthcare assertion -- claim is based on protecting children.
Irrespective of this one guy and his bad opinions, I don't think it's great to position opposition to what we're doing to Ukraine as being "anti-Ukraine."
Sure, but when it comes from a list of right-wing talking points it comes across as reflexive pro-Putin authoritarianism rather than a nuanced take on how to best deal with a terrible war.
On one hand, yeah, I understand the specific context of why that guy said the things he said and you're completely correct about that. On the other hand, even the most abhorrent republican's rhetoric is going to be at least 5% based in actual reality, and so we shouldn't rush to make our rhetoric the pure opposite. Reject Manichaeism!
To be fair, I don't think he's necessarily ant-Ukraine. I'm guessing he feels we have our hands full with our own problems and continuing to be the global police force continues draining whatever is left of our wallets (current and future). For example, didn't we just give them another 1/2 Billion? I know lots of people who feel that way (especially the global police part). To be clear, I absolutely want us there. Putin needs to be curb stomped into oblivion.
"I dont carry water for the R's" says the guy who spouts off "progressive woke", "grooming" and "leftist propaganda" in three sentences. My dude, you're not just carrying their water, you're letting their water carry you.
Yes, but that's only a small part of why that particular talking point is fucked up. They are taking the most marginalized group in our society and riling up a mob against them by branding them as child molesters. All for scoring cheap political points (see, Democrats are supporters of child molesters). One-hundred years ago, this type of rhetoric would have led to lynchings. Instead, we are "lucky" to only get stochastic terrorism. So seriously, fuck everyone who throws around "grooming" nonchalantly.
"I'm not a Republican, but..." and "I am a Democrat, but..." are ALWAYS the tell, and you can be sure that whatever follows that opening phrase will be some bad faith bullshit that conveniently always seems to favor the conservative/MAGA talking points.
It's also a typical tactic of the disinformation bots/troll farms that have been infesting social media over the years, to try to make MAGA bullshit seem more palatable and create a phony sense that somehow tons of Democrats are "walking away" to the right. I'm not sure why "Jay" thinks that would work here, though, if he had any familiarity with this community.
Got a question. Define "woke". Just curious... Because I'm guessing your definition is some variation of "I'm a white guy who wants to go back to being able to make fun/make life miserable for anyone who's not a white guy with no consequences."
"Drawing Bayesian inferences after extensive sampling, I've determined that it's 99-percent certain that anyone who uses "woke" as pejorative will turn out to be a fuckhead. Please don't blame me for pointing this out--it's just science."
Jay, you seem misguided in your thoughts. The right has, using your words, groomed and indoctrinated kids for a long time. Their agenda is intolerance and the only way to live life is their way. I agree there is some of that thinking is on the left as well, but don't act like the R's agenda is not indoctination. I see your point on WW III and I agree that by pumping in more arms, we are escalating the situation. But what is the alternative? Let a despot just roll into countries unmatched? WW III will happen anyway if we allowed it to continue unchecked. Finally, the border is just as much of a republican issue. THe last prson who did anything about it was Reagan and he gave amnesty. The R's don't want to do anything because if it was fixed, there is one less issue to run on. So if you don't carry water for the R's surely you can see these things.
Wow, so much of what you said here…do you REALLY think the meek democrats are trying to start a freaking World War? Really?
Ever notice who most of the notable child molesters turn out to be? It isn’t hard to check, but pastors, ministers, GOP state congressmen and GOP House Speakers. Every silly ‘groomer’ accusation against a democrat usually turns out to be an admission of guilt by the accusing party.
If the borders are undefended, how is it that U.S. Customs officials continued to interdict large quantities of fentanyl?
Your assertions are unfounded.
I hardly agree with the democrats on everything, but they aren’t evil and they aren’t traitors like a few GOP politicians we could name.
Please keep talking about groomers and banning books. GOP clods somehow going to lose the white vote if they keep up this paranoid stuff that turns off all normal people.
I am afraid my boss won't let me call in sick so I can read about baseball and about Spielberg. Skimmed the Spielberg list, and it is really telling that films I consider to be very good are really low on the list. Still haven't seen The Fabelmans, but am waiting eagerly to see what is, among other things, his latest reflection on being Jewish.
The Noah Song thing feels like it's being reported as "the Navy is relenting and letting him place, and that is good." As much as I am not pro-military, it always annoys me when we get a narrative of "let the soldier/seaman/cadet leave and go play a sport, it's good for recruiting." Last I checked, an obligation to serve is an obligation. Of course, I also think that the service academies shouldn't have Division I sports since as a taxpayer I am not thrilled my money is going for such things, so I have some pretty odd ideas.
He probably just didn’t reenlist for active duty and the Navy said he can finish his commitment in the reserves. I remember something about this when the Red Sox drafted him back in 2019, I seem to recall the reporting was this would have been the time they though he would be able to join the team, about 4 years after his tour ended. Wasn’t that about how much time David Robertson was in the Navy after his time in Annapolis?
From Red Sox reporters yesterday he may yet end up back in Boston. Keeping a guy on the MLB roster that hasn’t pitched competitively in 4 years may prove tough
I know it's both a different sport and a different era, but Roger Staubach managed to serve his time in the Navy and then be a pretty good QB.
And you mean David Robinson - an easy mistake to make since we are all about baseball here - but he only served two years, in part because he was too tall to serve at sea. (Those bulkheads are not that big.) His wiki page says he actually considered transferring but a compromise was reached. Though, yes, he was as much a recruitment poster as anything else. But he apparently would have had no future in the Navy. (He kept growing in college. Had he been 7 feet tall in high school, he would have never been admitted.)
I was briefly married to someone who graduated the NROTC program with a commission, and his commitment was 4 active & 4 reserve, so that could be the deal. (I'm old, things could have changed, this was before 9/11 for one thing!)
During WWII a lot of the MLB guys who were drafted played ball on traveling teams as organized military barnstormers.
While unfair to those getting risking their lives on the front lines, this was probably their best and highest use. Not Ted Williams, of course, because that would have been a terrible waste of a fighter ace, but many others…
And according to his bio (the one by Ben Bradlee Jr), he had a verbal agreement with the Marines to stay a reservist, only for someone to recall him without knowing he was THAT Ted Williams. By which point, there was pressure to fill as many planes with as many pilots as possible, even the ones who were Ted Williams.
There were a lot of people who stayed in the Reserves between the wars with the assumption, stated or otherwise, that they wouldn't be recalled unless and until the USSR had tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue. Truman's decision to activate the reserves was very unpopular but probably kept North Korea from pushing the very unprepared South Korean troops (with MacArthur's limited support) from being pushed to the sea.
I think at some level, Captain Williams knew and understood that. He did his duty, risked his life, served the nation he loved. But he also resented things, and even wondered if they were going out of their way to have the famous Ted Williams in Korea. Though had he been KIA, there might have been some really bad publicity. Or not, as the military could have pulled a Pat Tillman (putting aside for the moment that Tillman was killed by friendly fire).
Ted Williams was a fascinating ball of contradictions.
Vaguely related ... I used to live in Mobile. The U.S.S. Alabama, a World War Two era battleship, has been turned into a floating museum sitting at the top of Mobile Bay. Bob Feller was stationed on the Alabama during WWII and there is a small display of some of his military mementos in one of the wardrooms.
Intrigued by the idea of dead children being better for the state than live, post-abused ones. As someone who’s career as a clinical nurse was mainly concerned with keeping alive people suffered acute heart attacks, whilst economically it made sense for those of working age to survive, if they were pensioners it made more sense if they perished (no state money spent on them in their dotage, their estate going to their children to use etc).
I think the real problem comes when we - as is done in the UK - look at health first and foremost as a financial problem to be managed and view it entirely through an economic prism. Ultimately, that approach makes monsters of us all, not just right wing cod pieces.
By this economic rationale, shouldn’t Republicans be more pro-choice? “Every life is sacred, but damn those social safety net programs for low-income kids are sure expensive, and the higher incarceration and recidivism rates when they get older…”
Again, as it usually does, it comes down to irrational religion. It’s GOD’s job to kill youngsters, not humans’. Anti-abortion stances are mostly about thwarting God’s will, not care and concern for babies of any stripe—-if it •was• about caring for children, the GOP would be ALL OVER programs for kids, but it’s not, so they aren’t.
But if women keep churning out those babies they will be so busy being pregnant and mothering that they won't trouble their pretty little heads with man stuff like working and careers and that nonsense.
I live a pretty purple area and it’s just my personal experience, but I don’t think I know a single conservative who feels that way. At least half the wives have better jobs/careers than the husbands do.
TBF, suburban women in particular shifted against Trump in 2020. Rural and/or Bible belt conservatives are more likely to have those "traditional" views.
We watch a lot of British police crime dramas/series on AcornTV or BritBox during the off-season. It seems whenever a wife alibis a husband or vice versa on those shows usually the spouse suspected had something to do with the murder or the alibi falls apart. Based on that Burlington cold case it’s good to see it somewhat grounded in reality.
Last spring I was in Newquay down in Cornwall for a business trip. There is a set of stone stairs leading down to the beach, pretty high and steep. My first thought when seeing them was, I think I’ve seen these on a show. One of our hosts said just up the road a bit from Newquay is where the exterior shots from Doc Martin were filmed, didn’t have the time to get up there.
Movies like Jaws and Star Wars changed the way Hollywood films were released and promoted which gradually changed which types of films were made. Even popular movies like The Godfather would slowly be released across the country. By the early 80s, films opened on thousands of screens vs. dozens or hundreds. Fast-forward and films were made and promoted to make the lion's share of their profit on opening weekend. The biggest movies became review-proof. They were sequels, franchises, based on a well-know book or featured a well-known character. And now, these types of movies are the ones keeping theaters open.
Spielberg almost single-handedly invented that release model with "Jaws." Like, on the business side of things, that's his cinematic legacy.
Which made me hoot and howl a year or two ago when he came out as a big force against movies that appear on Netflix first being eligible for Oscar nominations. Like, that really, really pissed him off and he tried to change the Academy rules. The irony of that broke all of the irony-o-meters in existence.
Do you mean Jaws ended up inventing that model or Spielberg invented the model? Jaws was a perfect storm that showed Hollywood what could be done with the right film. It's far easier to market Empire Strikes Back than Ordinary People for many reasons. It's almost quaint to think how dependent films were on good reviews and word of mouth before this new model took hold. I don't disagree with him on films that premiere on TV vs. theatrical, but I still wish baseball would go back to four divisions so...
I'd have to go back and read "Easy Riders Raging Bulls" again to find out exactly whose idea it was, but Jaws is generally accepted as the first film to follow the "open in a zillion theaters at once following a big marketing campaign" as opposed to the "open in one city, then another, then another, allowing critical and popular consensus to build" model. Whether Spielberg himself pushed for that or merely benefitted from that, he's the guy who largely gets credited with it.
It's definitely the first film to be released that way; just not sure Spielberg gets the credit or blame. And Jaws is a completely different film than Star Wars; the former is a classically constructed horror film with more in common with Get Out or Nope than Ant-Man or the Avengers. Sorry, I'll stop but the evolution of movie marketing/release strategy is an interest and that's exactly what happened - it was an evolution towards efficiency and profit. Certainly not happy with what it led to but that's what happened. Does it make more sense to spend $50 mil to market a film that cost $300 mil but might gross $900 mil or spend $20 mil to market a film that cost $30 mil that might make $60 mil? That's Hollywood thinking.
Not really sure how I feel about an Ezra Miller movie. Which is to say, I feel sympathy for them because there are clearly mental health issues. But does that excuse them from years of treating people like crap? And would seeing them playing a character I like make me wince? (At least I have the other Flash actors to still like.)
Dammit… Now I’m thinking I need to re-up my MLB.tv so I can see all of this gamesmanship in real time! Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
PS Trolls are up early today, I see. As always, “collapse” is your friend.
Absolutely unrelated to anything in TODAY'S post of course, but is collapse one's only option here? It kind of looks like it is. I can't see a way where one who is just a reader of something can mute other users.
When I first read this, I thought you were referring to the book Collapse, which is about Perestroika and Glostnast. Seemed like a tall order for combatting trolls!
Note that throwing over a 3rd time wouldn't need to have a high success rate. It would just need to have a lower failure rate than letting the guy run.
If you think it's 80% likely that Trea Turner will run and steal the base successfully, a 3rd pick off throw with only a 25% chance of success would be a good play in theory. And that doesn't even take into account the benefit of future runners now knowing that you will throw over a 3rd time.
That type of scenario reminds me a bit of this Fangraphs article about why teams weren't running like crazy against Lester despite knowing that he literally would not throw over to first:
I'd put Angelos' (and other owners like him) admission to be more like "The top priority is making money, but if we can make a lot of money while also being competitive, that would be swell."
Do not underestimate the amount of Republicans who will support a minority candidate because they believe it proves they aren’t racist (and they think minorities will vote for another minority over a white person). No one plays identity politics more than the Republican Party. Nikki Haley and Tim Scott are already pretty directly going for that lane.
Nikki Haley faces the same child of Indian immigrants GOP stigma as Ramaswamy. Though she has the advantage of her name being western sounding, unlike his. But Ann Coulter is already telling her to "go back to your own country."
Haley is also a Christian (as was Bobby Jindal), and that probably smooths things over as well. While Ramaswamy is apparently Hindu , so he's going to hear it about that as well.
I initially thought Coulter's comment so mean-spirited that it might get Haley some sympathy support in response. Then I realized I wasn't thinking like a Republican.
There is also no way the Republican Party nominates a woman to be its Presidential candidate. Not right now. The party’s attempted optics of the moment is strongman fascism. (They are also actually fascists). Emphasis on the man part. You see, in their minds women cannot be strong. They want their women to be vapid models, standing by their man. So yeah Haley is out.
I was about to make a joke about Haley having to get into a figurative mud-wrestling match with Marjorie Taylor Greene for the VP nom. Then I realized that there is a non-zero chance that a Trump-led Republican National Convention would try to hold a literal version of that in prime time. Because this is the timeline we have chosen.
I agree but it might be the right strategic move given how hard suburban women have swung left and how prominently Dobbs will likely feature in the next election. They won't do it, but it would be smart, which I suppose it's also teleologically why they won't do it.
They might go that route if they picked someone pretty enough that they could ignore anything she said and she could plausibly be just a puppet for a man. Like how so many women who advocate that wives should stay at home with their children have jobs where they travel a lot and aren't at home with their children and yet the contradiction is ignored by their followers.
It would be really tricky, though, and I agree that having a woman as a clearly subordinate position would be a lot more likely and acceptable to their base.
That’s why it won’t happen. They show zero inclination to interrupt the base. It’s taken 40 years to poison them, and undoing that is to admit that you’ve poisoned them.
Where do you find these better fitting shirts? Asking for a me. (All my shirts are loose around the chest and tight at the belly since my adipose is all in one place.)
For four years as an Orioles fan, I bought "Trust Mike Elias." We were told when the time was right, the checks would be cut. This is a team that as recently as 2017 had a payroll over $160M.
The Orioles lied to us. This winter was proof. Starting pitchers liked Justin Verlander would have cost nothing but cash. The Orioles could have added $95M to last year's annual payroll and still been in the bottom half of the league.
They (and every other MLB club) were gifted $30M this winter by MLB after the sale of the remainder of BAMTech to Disney. And that just sat on that cash. And don't say "Well, they have to have money in reserve for the eventual MASN decision." That money's been sitting in escrow for a few years now, so it's not affecting payroll.
And now the team's owner is lying to us about who's setting the budget and passing the buck to his GM.
But just like Charlie Brown forever attempting to kick that football Lucy will inevitably pull away, I'm going continue to hope this is the year the Orioles make the playoffs and win it all. Sigh...
I do get the sense Kendall is actually reading the Baltimore press out there in Nashville, though. Because there is very little reason for him to keep running his mouth unless he realizes that with arguably the best young Orioles team since the early 60s, the main feeling in Baltimore is, "That loser isn't going to do anything."
This is why I have no idea why there's been no salary floor. It's going to be tough to fix for the sport's bottom feeders, but it's a shame how high the correlation is between salaries and attendance. (see: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/2022-misc.shtml) It feels like a lack of respect for the fans when they put a shitty team on the field.
Yep. And now the internal excuse is likely “my god, look what’s happened to Bally’s. The MASN money will run out. So we can’t spend any of it we banked.”
I’m surprised at the number of fans who are lining up behind Angelos to defend him these days. I called it “Oriole fan Stockholm Syndrome” in a rant over on Jon Meoli’s Substack.
It’s making me wonder how many “commenters” in the MASN chats are actually John Angelos! Especially on the Melewski side where the messaging is tightly controlled.
About a year ago I got into a somewhat heated argument with an Orioles fan who fully bought in to the "O's can't compete with the big market teams" stuff and it really infuriated me. It was like he was stuck in 2003 or something with his tired "We can't all buy championships like the Yankees" shtick.
I know someone on a film related site who HATES Spielberg. Hates every one of his movies. So next to him, you are doing okay. (Film people on the internet make baseball fans seem rational sometimes.)
Damn if Super 8 isn't a guilty pleasure for me. Elle Fanning "rehearsing" her scene at the train station (and making all the boys cry) gets me every time.
That first 10 minutes is a bunch of exposition but it's pretty good. Sets up the "dead mom" trope in an unsettlingly banal way.
I loved that in the theater, and at the time thought JJ was a visionary. Then I saw Star Trek and his two Star Wars films, and changed my mind. And then I watched Alias and halfway changed it back.
I have never seen it. Dinosaurs do nothing for me.
"Empire of the Sun" in DH with "Saving Private Ryan"
I consider Spielberg to be the contemporary equivalent of Shakespeare. A bunch of truly great stuff, a lot of mediocre material, and a few eminently forgettable things.
knee-jerk reaction is agree
I too often have *no idea* who a producer or director is for a movie unless it’s one of those things where it’s promoted to the nth degree.
Or discussed by people so much it’s hard to miss.
The one exception is Michael Bay. I am aware that I can sniff out a Michael Bay film a mile away, and have been successful at avoiding them (though unfortunately, that had to be a learned response after unknowingly viewing one of his efforts many years ago—but at least my olfactory systems have been adequately trained now to prevent any future ingestion errors).
I'm happy to take your money if you want to give it to me Jay -- and unless you cross the line into bigotry that you're toeing at the moment with your "groomer" comment, you're free to be here and say whatever you like -- but there is absolutely no one forcing you to open this "daily Cup of Leftist propaganda," so no one is gonna feel sorry for you. What I would suggest, however, is that if you take issue with something I say, you meet it with a cogent argument as opposed to a pathetic stab at whataboutism.
We're more divided than ever, in part, because Republicans and conservatives say things like "it'd be economically better for that child who suffered abuse to die than to get medical care." I mean, who the actual fuck says that? Oh wait, as I explained today, it was a Republican. Republicans are also the people who are attempting to push trans people out of public life and to deprive them of healthcare, all on the basis of a completely fabricated, hateful scaremongering tactic for which they -- ironically as fuck given the previous healthcare assertion -- claim is based on protecting children.
Anyway, enjoy Cup of Coffee.
Given your anti-Ukraine vibe, I should think being "the Pravda of substack" is what brought you here.
Irrespective of this one guy and his bad opinions, I don't think it's great to position opposition to what we're doing to Ukraine as being "anti-Ukraine."
Sure, but when it comes from a list of right-wing talking points it comes across as reflexive pro-Putin authoritarianism rather than a nuanced take on how to best deal with a terrible war.
On one hand, yeah, I understand the specific context of why that guy said the things he said and you're completely correct about that. On the other hand, even the most abhorrent republican's rhetoric is going to be at least 5% based in actual reality, and so we shouldn't rush to make our rhetoric the pure opposite. Reject Manichaeism!
To be fair, I don't think he's necessarily ant-Ukraine. I'm guessing he feels we have our hands full with our own problems and continuing to be the global police force continues draining whatever is left of our wallets (current and future). For example, didn't we just give them another 1/2 Billion? I know lots of people who feel that way (especially the global police part). To be clear, I absolutely want us there. Putin needs to be curb stomped into oblivion.
"I dont carry water for the R's" says the guy who spouts off "progressive woke", "grooming" and "leftist propaganda" in three sentences. My dude, you're not just carrying their water, you're letting their water carry you.
In Soviet Russia, water carries YOU!
Grooming? Really? For someone not carrying water for the R’s, you sure do casually throw around their fucked up talking points.
Denny Hastert has opinions on this topic.
Yes, but that's only a small part of why that particular talking point is fucked up. They are taking the most marginalized group in our society and riling up a mob against them by branding them as child molesters. All for scoring cheap political points (see, Democrats are supporters of child molesters). One-hundred years ago, this type of rhetoric would have led to lynchings. Instead, we are "lucky" to only get stochastic terrorism. So seriously, fuck everyone who throws around "grooming" nonchalantly.
I went to an evangelical high school and there were three separate incidents of grooming in my time there (and I'm sure more since I left).
This stuff is happening in classrooms, but it's not public ones.
*Not* carrying water can be SO tiring.
"I'm not a Republican, but..." and "I am a Democrat, but..." are ALWAYS the tell, and you can be sure that whatever follows that opening phrase will be some bad faith bullshit that conveniently always seems to favor the conservative/MAGA talking points.
It's also a typical tactic of the disinformation bots/troll farms that have been infesting social media over the years, to try to make MAGA bullshit seem more palatable and create a phony sense that somehow tons of Democrats are "walking away" to the right. I'm not sure why "Jay" thinks that would work here, though, if he had any familiarity with this community.
Got a question. Define "woke". Just curious... Because I'm guessing your definition is some variation of "I'm a white guy who wants to go back to being able to make fun/make life miserable for anyone who's not a white guy with no consequences."
When used as a pejorative, it's a word that morons like to sprinkle in to conversation to indicate "this is something that I personally do not like."
It's actually a handy way to quickly and easily identify idiots in the wild.
Godwin's Second Law:
"Drawing Bayesian inferences after extensive sampling, I've determined that it's 99-percent certain that anyone who uses "woke" as pejorative will turn out to be a fuckhead. Please don't blame me for pointing this out--it's just science."
https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163?s=20
I don't carry water for the R's (three Republican talking points that have no basis in reality.)
Jay, you seem misguided in your thoughts. The right has, using your words, groomed and indoctrinated kids for a long time. Their agenda is intolerance and the only way to live life is their way. I agree there is some of that thinking is on the left as well, but don't act like the R's agenda is not indoctination. I see your point on WW III and I agree that by pumping in more arms, we are escalating the situation. But what is the alternative? Let a despot just roll into countries unmatched? WW III will happen anyway if we allowed it to continue unchecked. Finally, the border is just as much of a republican issue. THe last prson who did anything about it was Reagan and he gave amnesty. The R's don't want to do anything because if it was fixed, there is one less issue to run on. So if you don't carry water for the R's surely you can see these things.
WW3 is easily avoided if we just appease the dictator who’s invading a neighboring country. I mean, that’s a plan that’s never failed.
Damn, this is just a top-tier example of "Every conservative accusation is a confession."
I wonder if you could please define "woke" so we all can understand your point.
Wow, so much of what you said here…do you REALLY think the meek democrats are trying to start a freaking World War? Really?
Ever notice who most of the notable child molesters turn out to be? It isn’t hard to check, but pastors, ministers, GOP state congressmen and GOP House Speakers. Every silly ‘groomer’ accusation against a democrat usually turns out to be an admission of guilt by the accusing party.
If the borders are undefended, how is it that U.S. Customs officials continued to interdict large quantities of fentanyl?
Your assertions are unfounded.
I hardly agree with the democrats on everything, but they aren’t evil and they aren’t traitors like a few GOP politicians we could name.
Please keep talking about groomers and banning books. GOP clods somehow going to lose the white vote if they keep up this paranoid stuff that turns off all normal people.
Spielberg's best move was probably when he went from Phoenix to Southern California--but that's just my opinion, man.
Obligatory Lucille Bluth: https://media.tenor.com/gkoU463PeRsAAAAd/arrested-development-lucille-bluth.gif
I am afraid my boss won't let me call in sick so I can read about baseball and about Spielberg. Skimmed the Spielberg list, and it is really telling that films I consider to be very good are really low on the list. Still haven't seen The Fabelmans, but am waiting eagerly to see what is, among other things, his latest reflection on being Jewish.
The Noah Song thing feels like it's being reported as "the Navy is relenting and letting him place, and that is good." As much as I am not pro-military, it always annoys me when we get a narrative of "let the soldier/seaman/cadet leave and go play a sport, it's good for recruiting." Last I checked, an obligation to serve is an obligation. Of course, I also think that the service academies shouldn't have Division I sports since as a taxpayer I am not thrilled my money is going for such things, so I have some pretty odd ideas.
He probably just didn’t reenlist for active duty and the Navy said he can finish his commitment in the reserves. I remember something about this when the Red Sox drafted him back in 2019, I seem to recall the reporting was this would have been the time they though he would be able to join the team, about 4 years after his tour ended. Wasn’t that about how much time David Robertson was in the Navy after his time in Annapolis?
From Red Sox reporters yesterday he may yet end up back in Boston. Keeping a guy on the MLB roster that hasn’t pitched competitively in 4 years may prove tough
I know it's both a different sport and a different era, but Roger Staubach managed to serve his time in the Navy and then be a pretty good QB.
And you mean David Robinson - an easy mistake to make since we are all about baseball here - but he only served two years, in part because he was too tall to serve at sea. (Those bulkheads are not that big.) His wiki page says he actually considered transferring but a compromise was reached. Though, yes, he was as much a recruitment poster as anything else. But he apparently would have had no future in the Navy. (He kept growing in college. Had he been 7 feet tall in high school, he would have never been admitted.)
I was briefly married to someone who graduated the NROTC program with a commission, and his commitment was 4 active & 4 reserve, so that could be the deal. (I'm old, things could have changed, this was before 9/11 for one thing!)
During WWII a lot of the MLB guys who were drafted played ball on traveling teams as organized military barnstormers.
While unfair to those getting risking their lives on the front lines, this was probably their best and highest use. Not Ted Williams, of course, because that would have been a terrible waste of a fighter ace, but many others…
Do they still do this?
Williams served mostly as a flight instructor in WWII. It was Korea when he saw actual combat.
And according to his bio (the one by Ben Bradlee Jr), he had a verbal agreement with the Marines to stay a reservist, only for someone to recall him without knowing he was THAT Ted Williams. By which point, there was pressure to fill as many planes with as many pilots as possible, even the ones who were Ted Williams.
There were a lot of people who stayed in the Reserves between the wars with the assumption, stated or otherwise, that they wouldn't be recalled unless and until the USSR had tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue. Truman's decision to activate the reserves was very unpopular but probably kept North Korea from pushing the very unprepared South Korean troops (with MacArthur's limited support) from being pushed to the sea.
I think at some level, Captain Williams knew and understood that. He did his duty, risked his life, served the nation he loved. But he also resented things, and even wondered if they were going out of their way to have the famous Ted Williams in Korea. Though had he been KIA, there might have been some really bad publicity. Or not, as the military could have pulled a Pat Tillman (putting aside for the moment that Tillman was killed by friendly fire).
Ted Williams was a fascinating ball of contradictions.
Vaguely related ... I used to live in Mobile. The U.S.S. Alabama, a World War Two era battleship, has been turned into a floating museum sitting at the top of Mobile Bay. Bob Feller was stationed on the Alabama during WWII and there is a small display of some of his military mementos in one of the wardrooms.
Intrigued by the idea of dead children being better for the state than live, post-abused ones. As someone who’s career as a clinical nurse was mainly concerned with keeping alive people suffered acute heart attacks, whilst economically it made sense for those of working age to survive, if they were pensioners it made more sense if they perished (no state money spent on them in their dotage, their estate going to their children to use etc).
I think the real problem comes when we - as is done in the UK - look at health first and foremost as a financial problem to be managed and view it entirely through an economic prism. Ultimately, that approach makes monsters of us all, not just right wing cod pieces.
It’s basically A Modest Proposal without the satire.
By this economic rationale, shouldn’t Republicans be more pro-choice? “Every life is sacred, but damn those social safety net programs for low-income kids are sure expensive, and the higher incarceration and recidivism rates when they get older…”
This assumes that their goal would be to solve the problems, and not to use them as dog whistles to keep getting votes.
This would assume that they have no eugenic program in mind, i.e., producing more "true American" babies.
Again, as it usually does, it comes down to irrational religion. It’s GOD’s job to kill youngsters, not humans’. Anti-abortion stances are mostly about thwarting God’s will, not care and concern for babies of any stripe—-if it •was• about caring for children, the GOP would be ALL OVER programs for kids, but it’s not, so they aren’t.
But if women keep churning out those babies they will be so busy being pregnant and mothering that they won't trouble their pretty little heads with man stuff like working and careers and that nonsense.
I live a pretty purple area and it’s just my personal experience, but I don’t think I know a single conservative who feels that way. At least half the wives have better jobs/careers than the husbands do.
TBF, suburban women in particular shifted against Trump in 2020. Rural and/or Bible belt conservatives are more likely to have those "traditional" views.
We watch a lot of British police crime dramas/series on AcornTV or BritBox during the off-season. It seems whenever a wife alibis a husband or vice versa on those shows usually the spouse suspected had something to do with the murder or the alibi falls apart. Based on that Burlington cold case it’s good to see it somewhat grounded in reality.
same! but we watch year-round, nightly!
the hill I die upon: there is no "best" but if there was, it would be "Unforgotten."
also -- when will Craig watch just one "Vera" to see the "Columbo" homage? online petition here:
We were happy to see a new Vera series that just started. We do watch during the season, Red Sox off days, when we can.
we go to the U.K. next week!
it's fun that when we are there we put the TV on back at the cottage (Cotswolds) or flat (London) and see our fav shows on "regular" TV.
we are "saving" Vera for when we get back home!!
Last spring I was in Newquay down in Cornwall for a business trip. There is a set of stone stairs leading down to the beach, pretty high and steep. My first thought when seeing them was, I think I’ve seen these on a show. One of our hosts said just up the road a bit from Newquay is where the exterior shots from Doc Martin were filmed, didn’t have the time to get up there.
Movies like Jaws and Star Wars changed the way Hollywood films were released and promoted which gradually changed which types of films were made. Even popular movies like The Godfather would slowly be released across the country. By the early 80s, films opened on thousands of screens vs. dozens or hundreds. Fast-forward and films were made and promoted to make the lion's share of their profit on opening weekend. The biggest movies became review-proof. They were sequels, franchises, based on a well-know book or featured a well-known character. And now, these types of movies are the ones keeping theaters open.
Spielberg almost single-handedly invented that release model with "Jaws." Like, on the business side of things, that's his cinematic legacy.
Which made me hoot and howl a year or two ago when he came out as a big force against movies that appear on Netflix first being eligible for Oscar nominations. Like, that really, really pissed him off and he tried to change the Academy rules. The irony of that broke all of the irony-o-meters in existence.
Do you mean Jaws ended up inventing that model or Spielberg invented the model? Jaws was a perfect storm that showed Hollywood what could be done with the right film. It's far easier to market Empire Strikes Back than Ordinary People for many reasons. It's almost quaint to think how dependent films were on good reviews and word of mouth before this new model took hold. I don't disagree with him on films that premiere on TV vs. theatrical, but I still wish baseball would go back to four divisions so...
I'd have to go back and read "Easy Riders Raging Bulls" again to find out exactly whose idea it was, but Jaws is generally accepted as the first film to follow the "open in a zillion theaters at once following a big marketing campaign" as opposed to the "open in one city, then another, then another, allowing critical and popular consensus to build" model. Whether Spielberg himself pushed for that or merely benefitted from that, he's the guy who largely gets credited with it.
It's definitely the first film to be released that way; just not sure Spielberg gets the credit or blame. And Jaws is a completely different film than Star Wars; the former is a classically constructed horror film with more in common with Get Out or Nope than Ant-Man or the Avengers. Sorry, I'll stop but the evolution of movie marketing/release strategy is an interest and that's exactly what happened - it was an evolution towards efficiency and profit. Certainly not happy with what it led to but that's what happened. Does it make more sense to spend $50 mil to market a film that cost $300 mil but might gross $900 mil or spend $20 mil to market a film that cost $30 mil that might make $60 mil? That's Hollywood thinking.
Here's a New Hollywood series we did a few years ago: https://wexarts.org/press/wexner-center-summer-film-series-spotlights-rarely-screened-gems-hollywood-icons
At the Wexner Center!
In addition to “Easy Riders, Raging Bulls”. I recommend Mark Harris’ “Pictures At The Revolution”.
If the MCU movies continue to be as awful as the last handful of them, then I’m not so sure anything will be left to keep them open.
And DC not really carrying its weight (See: Black Adam).
I need to see demonstrated competence before I believe it.
Not really sure how I feel about an Ezra Miller movie. Which is to say, I feel sympathy for them because there are clearly mental health issues. But does that excuse them from years of treating people like crap? And would seeing them playing a character I like make me wince? (At least I have the other Flash actors to still like.)
I was marginally interested in Black Adam - me and the JSA go way back - but I can't remember the last time I saw such uniformly bad reviews.
I am optimistic about Shazam 2, but maybe shouldn't be.
Dammit… Now I’m thinking I need to re-up my MLB.tv so I can see all of this gamesmanship in real time! Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
PS Trolls are up early today, I see. As always, “collapse” is your friend.
You may already know, or have other ways of getting MLB.TV, but a membership in MLBPAA gets you a link to 50% off. I just redeemed mine yesterday.
Absolutely unrelated to anything in TODAY'S post of course, but is collapse one's only option here? It kind of looks like it is. I can't see a way where one who is just a reader of something can mute other users.
It's the only option I've found. Works for me, though.
When I first read this, I thought you were referring to the book Collapse, which is about Perestroika and Glostnast. Seemed like a tall order for combatting trolls!
Note that throwing over a 3rd time wouldn't need to have a high success rate. It would just need to have a lower failure rate than letting the guy run.
If you think it's 80% likely that Trea Turner will run and steal the base successfully, a 3rd pick off throw with only a 25% chance of success would be a good play in theory. And that doesn't even take into account the benefit of future runners now knowing that you will throw over a 3rd time.
That type of scenario reminds me a bit of this Fangraphs article about why teams weren't running like crazy against Lester despite knowing that he literally would not throw over to first:
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/why-they-dont-run-like-mad-on-jon-lester/
I think that's a great example of how the pendulum has swung too far into the conservative direction. Your article reminded me of this one arguing that runners should try to steal home more often: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-exceptional-season-in-the-annals-of-stealing-home/
Wonder how teams are adjusting their opponents base stealing success rate now that the bases are closer?
Meh, I prefer Senor Spielbergo. Mr Burns, you truly are the King of Kings....
Listen Spielbergo, Schindler and I are like peas in a pod. We're both factory owners. We both made shells for the Nazis, but mine worked, dammit!
Don't cry for me, I'm already dead.
I'd put Angelos' (and other owners like him) admission to be more like "The top priority is making money, but if we can make a lot of money while also being competitive, that would be swell."
This is correct. Of course Angelos wants to win a championship—the dollars are delightful.
And if you can do it while all your players are young and on relatively inexpensive pre-arb and arb contracts, all the better.
“Let’s get to the post-season as cheaply as possible and see what happens.”
Do not underestimate the amount of Republicans who will support a minority candidate because they believe it proves they aren’t racist (and they think minorities will vote for another minority over a white person). No one plays identity politics more than the Republican Party. Nikki Haley and Tim Scott are already pretty directly going for that lane.
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and underestimate the number of Republicans who will support a minority candidate.
If it’s framed in a way that will cause ‘liberal tears’, they’ll happily line up for days.
Nikki Haley faces the same child of Indian immigrants GOP stigma as Ramaswamy. Though she has the advantage of her name being western sounding, unlike his. But Ann Coulter is already telling her to "go back to your own country."
Haley is also a Christian (as was Bobby Jindal), and that probably smooths things over as well. While Ramaswamy is apparently Hindu , so he's going to hear it about that as well.
I initially thought Coulter's comment so mean-spirited that it might get Haley some sympathy support in response. Then I realized I wasn't thinking like a Republican.
*thinking* like a Republican
[I know it's obv but it was there on the tee ...]
There is also no way the Republican Party nominates a woman to be its Presidential candidate. Not right now. The party’s attempted optics of the moment is strongman fascism. (They are also actually fascists). Emphasis on the man part. You see, in their minds women cannot be strong. They want their women to be vapid models, standing by their man. So yeah Haley is out.
She could however be the VP nominee. I wonder if she is even thinking this way, especially since Trump is old.
I was about to make a joke about Haley having to get into a figurative mud-wrestling match with Marjorie Taylor Greene for the VP nom. Then I realized that there is a non-zero chance that a Trump-led Republican National Convention would try to hold a literal version of that in prime time. Because this is the timeline we have chosen.
If Trump is going to nominate a woman, it will be someone a lot further into QAnon territory like Kari Lake.
It seems obvious to me that If Haley thinks espousing QAnon-sense will help her even 1%, she will do it.
It won't come across a genuine though, and the group that eats that shit up doesn't seem to welcome posers (see Ted Cruz).
I agree but it might be the right strategic move given how hard suburban women have swung left and how prominently Dobbs will likely feature in the next election. They won't do it, but it would be smart, which I suppose it's also teleologically why they won't do it.
Bob Dobbs?
The Bobs Dobbs and E. Neumann 2024
They might go that route if they picked someone pretty enough that they could ignore anything she said and she could plausibly be just a puppet for a man. Like how so many women who advocate that wives should stay at home with their children have jobs where they travel a lot and aren't at home with their children and yet the contradiction is ignored by their followers.
It would be really tricky, though, and I agree that having a woman as a clearly subordinate position would be a lot more likely and acceptable to their base.
That’s why it won’t happen. They show zero inclination to interrupt the base. It’s taken 40 years to poison them, and undoing that is to admit that you’ve poisoned them.
True. I think it would benefit them more than hurt them, but not with the rabid screaming hordes. And that's all they care about now.
And she has the advantage of being a political insider, with actual political experience, rather than a tech-bro disrupter.
Hey Craig, I know you joke about the ‘he showed up in the best shape of his career’ stuff, but check out Vogey….
https://nypost.com/2023/02/20/slimmer-daniel-vogelbach-ready-to-do-my-part-for-mets/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=message_app
Comparing the pictures, he really did lose a lot of baby lipids!
Are we sure he's not just wearing one of those "better fitting" shirts for big men for which I get ads all the time ... um, for no apparent reason?
Where do you find these better fitting shirts? Asking for a me. (All my shirts are loose around the chest and tight at the belly since my adipose is all in one place.)
I would say "just go on Instagram" but I know that's not going to happen. Let me see if I can find the link.
EDIT: Voila - https://trueclassictees.com/
Darn. No button down shirts, which is where I have the problem. But thanks anyway.
No, they do have button-downs too - go the hamburger, choose shop all, and then you can see more options
Ah, found them. A bit rich for my blood, but I might have to get one just to see if it is possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxDozuzfVuY&ab_channel=ThaBamboozler
Or these!
Reminds me of how Bartolo Colon's shape on the Mets made his early career physique look like Bartolo Semi-Colon.
For four years as an Orioles fan, I bought "Trust Mike Elias." We were told when the time was right, the checks would be cut. This is a team that as recently as 2017 had a payroll over $160M.
The Orioles lied to us. This winter was proof. Starting pitchers liked Justin Verlander would have cost nothing but cash. The Orioles could have added $95M to last year's annual payroll and still been in the bottom half of the league.
They (and every other MLB club) were gifted $30M this winter by MLB after the sale of the remainder of BAMTech to Disney. And that just sat on that cash. And don't say "Well, they have to have money in reserve for the eventual MASN decision." That money's been sitting in escrow for a few years now, so it's not affecting payroll.
And now the team's owner is lying to us about who's setting the budget and passing the buck to his GM.
But just like Charlie Brown forever attempting to kick that football Lucy will inevitably pull away, I'm going continue to hope this is the year the Orioles make the playoffs and win it all. Sigh...
I do get the sense Kendall is actually reading the Baltimore press out there in Nashville, though. Because there is very little reason for him to keep running his mouth unless he realizes that with arguably the best young Orioles team since the early 60s, the main feeling in Baltimore is, "That loser isn't going to do anything."
This is why I have no idea why there's been no salary floor. It's going to be tough to fix for the sport's bottom feeders, but it's a shame how high the correlation is between salaries and attendance. (see: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/2022-misc.shtml) It feels like a lack of respect for the fans when they put a shitty team on the field.
The players have turned down salary floors in the last several CBA negotiations. It gets paired with a cap, a bad trade in their opinion.
Yep. And now the internal excuse is likely “my god, look what’s happened to Bally’s. The MASN money will run out. So we can’t spend any of it we banked.”
“Preach on” said the choir!
I’m surprised at the number of fans who are lining up behind Angelos to defend him these days. I called it “Oriole fan Stockholm Syndrome” in a rant over on Jon Meoli’s Substack.
It’s making me wonder how many “commenters” in the MASN chats are actually John Angelos! Especially on the Melewski side where the messaging is tightly controlled.
About a year ago I got into a somewhat heated argument with an Orioles fan who fully bought in to the "O's can't compete with the big market teams" stuff and it really infuriated me. It was like he was stuck in 2003 or something with his tired "We can't all buy championships like the Yankees" shtick.
At this rate sometime this summer someone will actually use the term "empty eaters" and the thought of that happening makes my skin crawl.