I'm in, as long as I get to polish him/her off after you're done. A little Slappy seconds, as it were.
 

Jere,

Suppose the Sox were in a trade that netted them a new pitcher, say Tom Gordon, who happened to be black. Suppose I posted on here scornfully about his "black ass" and made fun of his wife.

You, and the readers, would probably think, "This guy is a racist clown, and he's so filled with hate, you can pretty much disregard anything he says."

Wouldn't you?

The reason why the American voters have given control of the entire government to the right wingers is because so much of what comes from the left is poorly-thought-out vitriol, like your post. America just disregards and recoils from it, and supports whoever the other guy is.

It's disappointing, because I love your website.
 

Gerry - I think the difference here is that jere is not a politician. He is nota lawmaker, or a member of the political media, or a pundit, or a Beltway Insider. And in tat regard, he is completely free to write whatever he so chooses. He is not indicative of whatever poblems you may see in the left, just as people who write things in a smilar vein on conservative sites are not indiative of whatever problems I may see on the right. You can disagree with him, but why exactly are you trying to make it any bigger than 'I disagree with you?'

Also, I've gotta say, your history on American politics is pretty deeply flawed. 'America' does not recoil from anything the liberals say. A slight percentage does, and then another much larger percentage dislike policy, and those two percentages together pparently make up 51% of the voting public. The other 49% clearly does not in fact recoil from the 'vitriol', or at least not from the left's vitriol. So please stop moralizingover politics and simply call it what it is. You disgree with him, and it made you mad. Ok. Fine. That's all you need to say. You don't ned the extra layers of galactic import, ok?

Also, give me a freakin' break with the racism analogy. Where exactly did jere write something that can be equated with a racial comment? the 'pale white SC justice' line? To me, tht's political commentary. Of the 110 justices in the history of the Supreme Court, 106 have been white males. Here's 107. It's something that absolutely should be noted, iven that white males make up only about 25% of this country's population, don't you think?

Jere- sorry to drop a long political bomb here, but I read what Gerry wrote I thought it was indicative of everything that is wrog with the world including puppy-killing. Also I just disagreed with it.
 

Andrew,

Your points are well taken. I agree with almost everything you said. I'm just tired of the Bush-is-the-Devil theme.


I was reading Bob Herbert's column in today's NYT just now. Here's a quote:

"In much of the nation, especially in urban and rural areas, the picture is even more dismal. In New York City, just 18 percent of all students graduate with a Regents diploma, which is the diploma generally required for admission to a four-year college. Only 9.4 percent of African-American students get a Regents diploma.

"It's terrifying to know that half of the kids of color in the United States drop out of high school, and that only one in five is prepared for college," said Tom Vander Ark of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is making a big effort to boost high school graduation rates and the number of graduates who are prepared for college.

#####################

That stunned me.

Something tells me Jere reads that and his first reaction is to find a way to blame it on Bush.
 

Gerry - this isn't a political blog, and frankly I have no idea what you want to accomplish by quoting that particular passage. And no, obviously Bush cannot be blamed for a historical inadequacy in the educational system that systemically fails to cater to the needs of poorer areas (be they urban, rural, black, or white). His No Child Left Behind policies, of course, can be counted among the reasons why positive education reform simply doesn't exist in this country, bu that's neither here nor there. My question is this: Who do you blame for that particular social issue? Many of your conservative brethren blame Clinton, or - more removed - FDR for it. Many ultra-conseratives, in the comforts of their homes (and please do not deny that you party has a fringe element that ascribes to this, because doing so would be the height of ignorance) would no doubt claim that this issue is simply endemic in the cultural makeup of African-Americans. A rational human being who isn't blinded by party loyalty might consider maybe not using educational statistics out of context and without a view of the far wider and longer ranging historical factors that are really at the root of them. So I ask you again: what was the point of posting that article?
 

Oh, and one more thing: You're tired of the "Bush is the Devil" thing, huh? Gee, that's a shame. Maybe conservatives should have thought about that before sending 8 years trying to trump up charge after charge on a President who, by most measures, was exorbitantly succesful, and effectively call him a power-hungry murderer? Just a thought. Hey, if only he'd invaded Third World countries with more gusto, huh?
 

I blame it on capitalism, really. And this government that tries to keep people poor and stupid. This is the "way of life" that I'm supposed to be supporting. And then you've got the army recruiting those same poor people who can't really do anything else, and sending them to defend this very way of life that keeps more people poor, getting them into the army, and the cycle continues, while all the disgustingly wealthy WHITE people sit in their safe mansions.

What Andrew said, about the white people thing. Bush is rubbing it in everyone's face by choosing the whitest dude he could find. Although he's just dumb enough to have done this by random chance.

But Americans have pretty much been brainwahed, I think, because I saw a poll where only something like 13 per cent of people thought Bush nominating a woman was essential. I just can't imagine these people on the street, all just saying, "Oh no, it's not essential, jeez we already have ONE woman on there anyway. We even have a black dude on there. Out of nine."

This isn't the fucking cast of Saturday Night Live, people. I just think having a Supreme Court that represents the entire nation would be a good thing.

And I don't think I made fun of the dude's wife. I just told you what group she's a part of. And I called her evil. Which is what I think a person is when they can walk right up to a woman who was impregnated from a rape and say "Think about the fetus." And then goes and kills doctors because they care about "life" so much. Not the she specifcally killed anyone, but you know what I'm saying.

It's like the pre-right-wing Dennis Miller said. One person's Ace Frehley is another person's Peter Criss. That's why there were FOUR separate Kiss solo albums. Choice is really important. If all ice cream was vanilla, we'd all revolt. But all these people try to take a choice away from women, and it pisses me off. And that's what this whole Supreme Court thing is all about, so that's why I brought all this up.

Sorry I disappointed you, but I don't think my view is "disappointing" in general, or poorly thought-out. I think too much, in fact.
 

And also, I don't much care for Republicans or Democrats, as they're all rich politicians, anyway. I think the "liberals" always making fun of everything happens because we just pay attention to everything. We made fun of Clinton's various decisions, too.

It's like Red Sox fans. I think the way the fans are has to do with the fact that we pay so much attention to everything. (The fickle-ness, the being really quiet when something goes terribly wrong, the nitpicking and poring over every detail of what management is doing year-round.) It's not because we WANT to make fun of stuff, we just have our eyes wide open and when something's there, we can't just sit back and not care.
 

Oh, and when I said, "What Andrew said, about the white people thing" I meant "I agree with what Andrew said...." It was supposed to be like when people say "What he said." But I guess I screwed it up.
 

Andrew,

If you have a problem with the use of the stats in the article, take it up with Bob Herbert, the brilliant African-American left-wing columnist in the NYT. You can read his article today here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/opinion/21herbert.html?hp

Why did I post it? Just to suggest that all the rage about Bush's nominee's wife's group's position on late-term abortion is.....maybe misdirected.

By the way, I think Jere did blame NCLB for those stats, which I sadly predicted.
 

The thing that makes me completely irate about the abortion issue and the conservative perspective is - everything under the sun is done to prevent an abortion (mass picketing, grotesque posters, harrassment), but when the life becomes real, when there's an actual person who needs to eat and be educated and clothed, the passion to save the person dies. And that's when it matters most. Welfare and government spending and essential programs are constantly cut, thus putting these young people at even more of a disadvantage. And who usually votes in favor of these cuts? Republicans. The holier than thou right-to-lifers. I think it's shameful, this blatant inconsistency. If you're going to push for life, then the ENTIRE life needs to be considered. That's my 2 cents. For now.

No, that's not all. Because I just realized that this ties in with Jere's point about some of these young disadvantaged people becoming targets for armed force recruitment. When you've got limited options and some asshole is telling you that the army will help you create a music career, this sounds pretty damn tempting. You're not thinking that you could die at the hands of an insurgent.
 

I didn't even mention NCLB. And when I said "this government," I meant "the government," not Bush's in particular. Was that where the confusion was?

Which isn't to say that I think Bush's government is only as bad as the previous one, because I obviously think it's much worse.

It's funny how I've been starving for comments lately, and then I say the word abortion and they come rolling in. Had I done that on purpose, it would have been a perfect plan.
 

Gerry - I have no problem with Herbert's use of those stats. I haven't read the article. I have a problem with your use of them, out of the blue, to try to goad Jere into proving your point by blaming Bush. Which, despite your completely baseless claim, he did not: "I blame it on capitalism, really. And this government that tries to keep people poor and stupid. This is the "way of life" that I'm supposed to be supporting." I'm really not sure where you get "By the way, I think Jere did blame NCLB for those stats", as he very very clearly did not.

And let me be clear: NCLB is a terrible program for public education, which first does not address the root problem of the arican educational system (local distribution of funds and teacher training) and second institutes far too pervasive testing which removes most teacher leeway. Te problem with NCLB, to me, has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the fact that the Bush government has shown no trust in teachers to do their jobs. But it is obviously not responsible for a social issue that has been in existence about... oh, say, 12 times longer than NCLB has been in existence.

Now, as for "Why did I post it? Just to suggest that all the rage about Bush's nominee's wife's group's position on late-term abortion is.....maybe misdirected."... how, exactly, does a quote on minority graduation rates suggest anything about anyone's position on abortion? The answer is fairly clearly 'nothing'. So I ask again. Why did you post that quote in relation to this post?
 

um... yeah, so 'arican' is my wonderfully clever spelling of 'American'. Just so you know.
 

Ha.

Somehow, that last comment was more powerful than anything else discussed so far here, heh heh.

Just shows the importance of the Red Sox in all our lives.
 

Andrew and Jere,

First of all, Halama does suck. Also, I'm pro-choice, pretty strongly so.

Secondly, I posted that quote to emphasize this idea: We, as a nation, focus upon the political horseraces and hot-button social issues like Ten Commandments on the wall or gay marriage, while the real big challenges facing the country go undiscussed. And if Herbert is right, that only ten percent of urban kids are getting any kind of education, that is a much bigger deal than Roe V. Wade.

And Halama does indeed suck. The problem I'm having with Theo's shaping of the team this year is that I keep remembering what guys did LAST year, and how that all turned out. Embree was huge, and Bellhorn too. So it bothers me to see them go, even though they must. I swear Bellhorn has struck out every single AB I've watched him have this year.

But I'll never, ever forget that homer he clanked off the foul pole in game 7, ALCS. I was sitting at my in-laws, surrounded by Yankee fans who were desperate for a comeback. The ball echoed off the pole, it was like a ringing death knell for the Yankee empire, the curse, the decades of coming in second. I turned to my brother-in-law, he had his head in his hands as the ball hit, and fell away.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, O you arrogant, haughty, loudmouthed, cocky, obnoxious, greatest choke in history Yankee fan.

It tolls for thee.

I'll always love Bellhorn.
 

OMG, I am so mad that I missed this conversation. so how do you feel about your comments, now, jere?