In comments on Scott‘s post, Jay says
I am still uncomfortable with saying that steroids are no big deal and that the argument for banning them is silly. Allowing steroid use creates an institutional pressure to have players unnecessarily put their health at risk to stay competitive. In no other industry would we so cavalierly accept this state of affairs except in professional sports.
I’m in basic agreement with this. Even without certainty about just how harmful to your health or helpful to your performance steroids actually are (and my sense is that their harm, like most drugs on the wrong side of our culture’s good vs. bad drug dividing line, is probably overstated), a solid case can be made for a ban on a sort of collective action problem grounds Jay suggests. Ownership may have legitimate concerns about this as well, including PR concerns. On the other hand, I take privacy pretty seriously, so if they players union democratically concluded the privacy violations of drug testing were a bigger negative to them than solving the collective action problem of steroid use was a positive, I’d certainly respect that conclusion–I’m not the one who’ll be required to give blood samples, pee in a cup, etc. But it seems clear to me that this is a matter of the terms and rules of employment best hashed out between MLBPA and management, as it eventually was.
However, since it’s not my body, my privacy, or my financial interests, I’m not in a reasonable position to claim to be a stakeholder in whatever conclusion is reached. Until I see a compelling argument that “the public” or “the fans” have a legitimate, non-sentimental basis for claiming stakeholder status on this issue, I’m going to continue to be dismissive and contempuous of moralistic hand-wringing about steroids.
…also, what McKingford said about the football/baseball double standard. It strikes me as really, really weird.
“How can 2,000,000 blacks get into Washington, DC in 1 day in sub zero temps when 200,000 couldn’t get out of New Orleans in 85 degree temps with four days notice?”
This question was posed in an email sent out by Florida Republican State Committeewoman Carol Carter of Hillsborough County.
She later sent out this email:
“I have been asked to send this apology for my earlier email. I am sorry that it was received in a negative manner. I do hope that we are going to be allowed to keep our sense of humor. As you can now see, it went to very few people. I did add Todd Marks in this apology, as he is in the mix now. I am also sorry to learn that some of these persons are not real team players. There really was no reason for this to go beyond those that I emailed ( 8 people). This was not an email blast as I do not have that capability.
She then resigned.
Why do people do this? (I don’t mean send out racist emails — they do that because they’re racists). Isn’t it obvious that a non-apology apology is far worse than no apology at all?
Shorter Verbatim Glenn Reynolds, circa 2004: “TODDZILLA ASKS: ‘Where is everybody going to Spring Break? Daytona? Guantanamo Bay?’ Well, there are some similarities…”
Hahahahahahahahaha! Obviously, this is the kind of civility that Pajamas Media is bringing to the interwebs. Meanwhile, Tristam reminds us of the latest news:
Last week, two British High Court judges ruled against releasing documents describing the treatment of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident who is currently being held at Guantanamo Bay.
The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, “is very far down the list of things they did,” the official said.
Another source familiar with the case said: “British intelligence officers knew about the torture and didn’t do anything about it.”
Let’s just say that I hope that Reynolds never publishes his vacation diaries.
It’s really too bad that the Yankees aren’t dumb enough to follow this kind of advice. And yet, the competition remains stiff.
…Kaufman: “One of these days, there’s going to be a national throw-your-hands-up moment about steroids, when the prevailing point of view is going to become “Ah, hell, they were all doing it. Let’s call off the witch hunts and get on with our lives.” I hope so. But if history has taught us anything, it’s that these kinds of purtain moralistic outrages have a remarkable ability to perpetuate themselves.
You know, if you want to argue that the internet has made American politics “considerably ruder, cruder, and more paranoid than it used to be,” you’d do well to find a better totem of our lost virtues than the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates. Leave aside the obvious fact that the major subject of their argument — the question of whether to permit the extension of slavery into the territories — led to the bloody Civil War. And leave aside the obvious fact that the debates came at the tail end of a decade constipated with paranoia — from rumors of vast papist conspiracies, to racist yodeling about the “heathen Chinee,” to sectional beliefs that abolitionists or the Slave Power were conspiring against liberty itself. And while you’re at it, forget the other unpleasantness of the 1850s — the massacres in Kansas, or the bludgeoning of a US Senator at his own desk, or the national frenzy over John Brown.
While you’re forgetting all that, just remember that from August to October 1858, Stephen Douglas and his surrogates waddled about the state of Illinois, arguing that Abraham Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery because he wanted to marry a black woman.
But the debates were long, so Americans must have been classier back then.
Jethro Tull robbed again!
See, it’s a meta-joke about the irrelevance of the Grammys that I’m the millionth person to make a 20-year-old joke. It’s like the Oscars, I guess — the scary thing is that the middlebrow work of artists who have done better work elsewhere is actually a considerable improvement over the typical winner.
And I admit I slightly regretted missing the 9-months-pregnant M.I.A. until I saw the video. Eh–that mutli-artist dilution never works.
Apparently there is now a self-described wingnut answer to Doonesbury. I dunno, I think it makes me miss the crudely drawn cartoon duck reading Glenn Beck transcripts. Maybe they should start smaller, with a wingnut response to “Hi and Lois” or something. Then the not-funniness would just be an homage.
Always remember that the free market is always vastly more efficient and less wasteful than government:
New state gift disclosures show it cost Liberty Legal Institute and the two law firms working with it $185,000 to represent six Alaska legislators in an unsuccessful lawsuit to halt their colleagues’ “Troopergate” investigation.
The legislators listed a $25,000 gift of services from the Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute. Liberty is the legal arm of the Free Market Foundation, which is associated with evangelical leader James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and lists its guiding principles as limited government and promotion of Judeo-Christian values. The lawmakers also disclosed a $120,000 gift of services from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, a national firm that appeared at hearings on behalf of Liberty Legal.
Anchorage attorney Kevin Clarkson represented the six legislators in the case as well, and turned to Liberty Legal for its constitutional expertise. The lawmakers reported a $40,000 gift of services from Clarkson’s firm.
That brings the total bill for their lawsuit to $185,000.
This seems awfully bizarre. The lawyer retained by the Legislative Council earned just under $30,000 for the effort. Ordinarily, I’d be delighted to learn that a right wing legal defense organization had just blown a couple hundred thousand dollars, but I’m assuming there’s a sizable tax advantage to be gained from such a venture — not to mention the wingnut public relations/donor utility that would come from trying to protect Sarah Palin from the godless socialists who opposed her right to abuse her office. I’d imagine the $185G will prove to be a fairly good investment in the long run. Can anyone make me feel better by showing how wrong I am to assume this?
In these dark hours, nothing lifts the spirit like a good swine- and throat-rape-themed manifesto.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity….
The multi-generational financial rape that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and so many members of our Congress are trying to force down our throats—under increasing threats and ever-louder fear-mongering—is a betrayal of the core ideals of our Founding Fathers.
We face a very simple choice here, in early February of 2009, my fellow Americans.
We stop the fencing today.
We stop our government, Republican and Democrat alike, and declare that they will not have their bloated stimulus, this financial rape of our children’s future, that dwarfs the costs of the entire Iraq War and Afghan War combined.
We will shout out NO MORE.
Or in the not too distant future, we will face a far darker decision, that of surrendering what little of our freedom that remains to the all powerful government, or sharpening our tusks, and going to war yet again against tyranny. Hopefully, you will act to day and not allow yourself to be led dumbly into that pen. You will stop it, now, before it can successfully be constructed.
This doesn’t hold a candle to the greatest wingnut pep talk of the past five years, but it’s pretty impressive stuff nonetheless.
If only there were some way for Bob to escape the hog pen….
The key to diplomacy is to tell lies plausible enough that the listener isn’t embarrassed:
A foretaste of what would be in store for President Hamid Karzai after the election of a new American administration came last February, when Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a senator, sat down to a formal dinner at the palace during a visit here.
Between platters of lamb and rice, Mr. Biden and two other American senators questioned Mr. Karzai about corruption in his government, which, by many estimates, is among the worst in the world. Mr. Karzai assured Mr. Biden and the other senators that there was no corruption at all and that, in any case, it was not his fault.
The senators gaped in astonishment. After 45 minutes, Mr. Biden threw down his napkin and stood up.
“This dinner is over,” Mr. Biden announced, according to one of the people in the room at the time. And the three senators walked out, long before the appointed time.
Although, frankly, Karzai may have learned from eight years of experience with the Bush administration that Americans will believe anything. Via SWJ.
In light of recent developments, I would like to reaffirm my support for and complete loyalty to the Colonial government, its legitimate civilian leadership, and its duly appointed military commanders. Oh, and permanent alliance with the Cylons is a really, really good idea. That is all.
I’ve often remarked that the New York Times non-news sections too often present the implication that their audience is made up primarily of multimillionaires. One of the worst examples I can recall was an article about how annoying it is to run into those people you were trying to get away from when vacationing in the Hamptons. I think we’ve got a new winner:
Five hundred thousand dollars — the amount President Obama wants to set as the top pay for banking executives whose firms accept government bailout money — seems like a lot, and it is a lot. To many people in many places, it is a princely sum to live on. But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast.
And it goes on and on like this. That people adjust their lifestyles to match their salaries will come as a revelation to absolutely no one. The news that New York is an expensive place to live is equally unsuprising. Beyond that, on it’s face, the article offers nothing by way of perspective or insight to the reader. If the point of this article isn’t a ham-fisted attempt to create sympathy for wealthy bankers who’ve been making millions for years and hasn’t bothered to save enough to withstand an income reduction, I’m not sure what the point of it could be. Fortunately, it’s so ludicrously tone-deaf that (outside of the Villagers who no doubt share these urgent conerns) it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.