Monday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 08:53:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

After spending my non-working hours today reading and and writing about death penalty trials and riots, I'm switching gears.

Unimas tonight begins re-airing El Cartel de los Sapos aka Cartel of Snitches -- the Narcodrama that started the phenomenon. It will have the option of viewing with English captions. This really is supposed to be the first and best of them all. I've only seen a few episodes in Spanish, which I couldn't quite follow. It's about the take-down of the Norte Valle cartel, and was written by former cartel member (now best selling author) Andres Lopez Lopez, when he was in prison (he only got 2 years for cooperating with the DEA against his cartel buddies.) While the names are changed, almost all the characters are based on real life figures and everyone is in it, including Pablo Escobar, Gilberto Rodríguez Orejuela and his brother Miguel (leaders of the Cali Cartel), Juan Carlos Ramírez Abadía, Carlos Castano (one of the Castano brothers), Diego Montoya, Wilber Varela (Soap), Amado Carrillo Fuentes (Senor de los Cielos), Miguel Félix Gallardo and many more. [More...]

Its on at the same time as Senor de los Cielos, but they both replay at midnight, so even without a DVR, you can see both.

It will air Mondays through Fridays, until it wraps. It is likely to be condensed, as that's the new premise of the networks. Unimas' new versions are called Novelas Xpress while Telemundo's are called Super Series.

Super series Duenos Del Paraiso (Masters of Paradise) ended Friday. The ratings were Telemundo's best yet -- more than 3 million a night. Kate Costillo (La Reina del Sur) the series' lead, was great, as were a few other characters, but it had less to do with the drug trade and more to do with the interpersonal romances and betrayals of the characters. In other words, although there was non-stop action, there was a bit too much soap for my taste and a few too many plot lines. It certainly didn't compare to El Capo, La Reina del Sur, Senor de los Cielos or Pablo Escobar: Patron de Mal.

If you aren't into fictionalized historical narcodramas, The Voice continues tonight. The contestants and music really are excellent this season.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Riots in Baltimore After Freddie Gray Funeral | Bali Nine Duo and Others to be Murdered at Midnight >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Monday Night Open Thread | 80 comments (80 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Marriage equality argued at SCOTUS (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by Peter G on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 12:41:19 PM EST

Audio and transcripts available via links at SCOTUSBlog, plus lots of links to commentary from observers. No reason, after argument, to retract the predictions that it will be close, and in fact is not a guaranteed win for equality advocates. One protester ejected after standing up and screaming that the Justices would burn in hell if they ruled incorrectly. That was probably not persuasive to any of them that might have been leaning toward a pro-SSM ruling.

Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#7)
by christinep on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 01:09:20 PM EST

I looked quickly at the blog summary @SCOTUS.blog awhile ago; and, got the impression that J. Kennedy is genuinely struggling with the federalism aspect traditionally inherent in the role of states and marriage. Yet, he appears open--at least, on the surface--to the 14th amendment as trump card (and, definitely, open to the Full Faith & Credit aspect involving conflicting state laws.)

Husband, in his quixotic & sarcastic-type way, said: "Of course, he is open ... remember Bush v. Gore...he just needs to find a way to get there." (We nodded together about practice and philosophy. For example: Here, in Colorado, the Feds have found a way to ignore the state's passage of law allowing for retail marijuana use. And, that is to our benefit.)

Along the lines of societal change "where there is a will, there is a way," any thoughts about how Anthony Kennedy might approach the role of the states in this matter, Peter? Tea leaves or Tarot?


I believe it is quite possible, although (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Peter G on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 01:17:03 PM EST

I am in a distinct minority among "experts" in this regard, that the Court (i.e., Kennedy & Roberts, who are the swing votes here (not "swingers," but swing votes)) might rule that states are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to amend their laws to permit same-sex couples to marry but are required to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage entered into in another state that allows them, to the same extent they honor other out-of-state marriages that they themselves would not license (first cousins, for example, or under age).


I tend to agree, (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by KeysDan on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 02:19:27 PM EST

that the recognition-only approach may be the way to attract the Chief Justice and assure the inclusion of Justice Kennedy, for the makings of a 6/3 decision. Such a decision would, in effect, allow all same sex couples to marry, and allow states to carry on with their own bans. The decision would be a half-measure avoiding the Court saying directly that gay couples have a right to marry--based either on the equal protection clause or as a fundamental constitutional liberty.

However, I am not sure as to what would occur, in such case, in those states in which the bans have been found unconstitutional at the the District level. After letting several of the Circuit Court rulings on the basis of unconstitutional grounds stand, the Supreme Court may have created instability in what now presents itself as an opportunity to provide stability. We need look no further than Alabama, an example of a state that would cultivate problems with even the half-measure of recognition-only.

While questions asked by a Justice during hearings is not a definitive signal as to a vote, the question of Chief Justice Roberts on the problem if, say, one state only permitted same sex marriages, that state would be setting policy for the nation. Of course, this is a hypothetical, and may have been just a probe, but it could mean that he was finding a way to avoid even recognition.

The Chief Justice (as with the ACA) seems to recognize the longer-term role of the Court, and is likely, in this case to find a way that he believes permits same sex marriage in the narrowest of ways--recognition seems to do that, but this is an instance where the easiest way will prove not to be the best way.

Of course, the half-measure would still carry a badge of inferiority for the affected married couples and present disdain, by other states, for those that do permit such marriages. Another divisive and simmering national issue.

My hope is that the Court will seize this propitious opportunity to act decisively, if not as broadly, as some may want. That decisiveness would require that same sex marriages are to be allowed in all staters based on equal protection principles.


The best argument against the theory (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Peter G on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 04:44:15 PM EST

that Roberts might try to fashion a compromise by going for inter-state recognition only, is that it contains a fatal internal contradiction. He is too analytical not to see that if all states must recognize other states' lawfully authorized same-sex marriages, then as long as at least one state has equal marriage rights then SSM is a de facto national reality. Any gay couple that wishes to marry can travel (subject to financial constraints, I suppose) to that Nirvana state (let's call it "Massachusetts" or "Maryland" or "Washington," just hypothetically), get married there, go home, and be fully and legally married in their home state, that is, in any state and every state.


It's transparently dumb (none / 0) (#21)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 04:49:28 PM EST

But might also be an escape hatch that allows them to say they are leaving it to the states. If they care about such things.
I can't help thinking they just don't want to talk about this any more.


I remain (none / 0) (#23)
by KeysDan on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 05:37:56 PM EST

hopeful that Justice Kennedy will tip the balance in favor. His major concern seemed to be that he did not know if it was the Court's job to decide. But, when he recollects the gist of the Sixth Circuit's argument to sustain the ban, it was because they did not think it was their job to decide--it was the Supreme Court's.

Or, his thinking that we need to wait longer for acceptance. The notion that we must await social evaluation before deciding may not fare well when the Hobby Lobby case is recalled. Moreover, that argument was undermined, later, by Justice Scalia, when he claimed that some would be unlikely to ever approve owing to their religious beliefs. Which would make for a very long gestation period and a tough evaluation.

If the Chief Justice wants to ride to the rescue, we may find it in his concern for sex discrimination. "If Sue loves Joe, and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't." That is sex discrimination, says the Chief. And, maybe a mistake for Sue and Tom.


One of the more remarkable (none / 0) (#24)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 05:54:35 PM EST

arguments I've heard against equality is that it would somehow be bad for gay men who were married to women.

Sounds made up but I honestly saw this somewhere.


I saw (none / 0) (#26)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 06:27:11 PM EST

that too and there are a whole bunch of explanations about why that is but I can't remember them beause it was a really strange argument.


Here (none / 0) (#27)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 06:31:58 PM EST

it is link


A subject I have some experience with (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 06:45:33 PM EST

i was with a man for 12 years who had previously been married to a woman for 10 years and had two kids. It was a terrible painful thing for everyone involved. Things were different then. When he finally realized what had to be done he told his wife the truth one morning at breakfast. She threw him out with nothing but his clothes and he never saw his kids again.
If there was any "effect" I would hope to god it would be to stop terrible mistakes from being made.
Believe it or not I almost got married once. At about 18. Oh my god what a disaster that would have been.
So I suspect they may have reason to fear that fewer gay men will marry women because they think they are supposed to.


Hopefully. (none / 0) (#30)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 07:24:38 PM EST

I had a roommate in college that preferred to date gay guys because she would rather be left for another man than another woman. I guess she would have been one of the ones that would have been okay with marrying someone that she knew was gay. And this was back in the early 80's so like your friend it was different and that kind of was the only option back then.


: After the horror story above (none / 0) (#31)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 07:38:44 PM EST

i should probably say I know gay men who are happily married and completely out. One I've known since college is a very important person in the art world in this state. He has a house full of kids.
All of the people I know, husbands and wives, are for marriage equality. I just emailed him that article.
Honestly that Slate article creeped me out a little.

: That sounds suspiciously like ... (none / 0) (#58)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 07:05:03 PM EST

... one of my cousins back in Illinois, who never entered into a personal relationship with another man without already being firmly convinced that it was star-crossed and doomed from the outset, because he was simply too good for her. Not surprisingly, she's believes that she deserves to be alone, and so she is.

Response to Peter G & Keys Dan (none / 0) (#12)
by christinep on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 03:07:53 PM EST

Yes, my read is that most have focused on the first question and not the potential limited move of recognition via Full Faith & Credit. I agree with both of you that this may become the basis for a 6-3 decision; and, I also agree that it would lengthen instability and might not be satisfactory in the longer view.

OTOH, half-measures can function as a back door to the full measure of Constitutional protection. Also: It could be that the emphasis on how quick/speedily to usher in the full measure could point to a coalescing belief among the "swing" votes that the changing times (together with a decision based on recognition) will bring about a fait accompli in a practical sense in a few years. For classic judicial conservatives, that kind of semi-standing back approach might have a double allure. I wonder, tho, what kind of legacy this Chief Justice wants when future students and lawyers read about the big issues, the defining seminal issues....


Yes (none / 0) (#13)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 03:46:20 PM EST

it would lengthen instability and might not be satisfactory in the longer view.

Far be it from me to disagree with my two favorite legal eagles but I think this. I would think they want to be done with this once and for all. I would be surprised if in the end they only say that states must recognize marriages in other states. And I can't imagine them not at least doing that.
It's true that either way would be a massive victory for our side I'm thinkin they are going to go for it.

That's my guess. Which along with 4.50 will get you a cup of coffee.


During the second hearing segment (none / 0) (#15)
by KeysDan on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 04:14:02 PM EST

devoted to the recognition issue, Justice Kennedy (unlike during the first segment) did not ask any questions. My hope is that Justice Kennedy did not need to ask any questions on recognition, because he has formed his opinion with regard to the first (in favor based on equal protection principles and/or fundamental constitutional liberty guarantees for all couples). But, then, I, too, am just reading the grounds in that $4.50 cup of coffee.


: Or he was just mentally exhausted (none / 0) (#18)
by Peter G on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 04:36:14 PM EST

after the first 90 minutes.

"...they are going to go for it" (none / 0) (#16)
by christinep on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 04:24:06 PM EST

Because they've come this far ... I think so too. Half-measures do have a pull among certain conservatives, but the arc of history & legacy can be a magnet.


: Agreed. (none / 0) (#19)
by KeysDan on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 04:37:13 PM EST

The decision needs to be completed and put to rest.

NEWSMAX CEO on CGI and right wing media (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 09:23:58 AM EST

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

So, it is not every day that I defend Bill and Hillary Clinton, or the Clinton Foundation.
In fact, it may come as a surprise to some. In the 1990s I was described by both James Carville and George Stephanopoulos as the Clinton White House's No. 1 press enemy. But after Bill Clinton left the White House, I came to admire him and his post-presidential work.
I was drawn to him largely for the very same reason he and his wife are being criticized today: the Clinton Foundation. Over time, I was impressed enough with its work that I even became a donor.
---
A Fox News special that aired this past Friday detailed many of the allegations from the still-unreleased book. Fox said the book showed the "tangled" and "blurred" relationships between the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons' private or political activities.
After watching the Fox program, it became clear to me the only thing "tangled" and "blurred" are the numerous unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless allegations being made about them.

A surprising read

Just anecdotally (none / 0) (#38)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00:31 AM EST

the whole CGI thing doesn't seem to be something that a lot of rank and file conservatives seem to be screaming about. The GOP elite yes, but not seeing much about it on social media.

That and the fact that he's going after Jeb too. So if they are going to elevate this nut to some kind of truthteller they are hurting themselves along the way.


Why Do I Have the Feeling... (none / 0) (#40)
by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 11:35:42 AM EST

...that going after Jeb is going to result in a clean bill of health. My gut tells me it's part of the 'fair and balanced' reporting liked by so many, that is anything but.


: I would (none / 0) (#41)
by FlJoe on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 11:56:07 AM EST

imagine that Jeb, along with Walker and Christie, are getting more then a little nervous with all this talk of "scrutiny". None of them would welcome even half the "scrutiny" that Hillary is getting. Rubio, Cruz and Paul might see it as an advantage as they are relative newcomers and have not had to time to accumulate the "baggage" that other long term politicians tend to accumulate.

: Well, (none / 0) (#43)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 12:24:14 PM EST

supposedly he accuses Jeb for some sort of pay for play junk too. But maybe this nut has the goal of knocking Jeb out.

this isn't new, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Reconstructionist on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 11:27:54 AM EST

and I'm not usually a sucker for this kind of thing, but this guy is something.

Typewriter artist

Today's Orioles game against the White Sox (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Zorba on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 02:31:35 PM EST

Is being played, even as I type this, to an empty stadium.

Pictures of the empty Camden Yards.

This weekend's scheduled Baltimore games against the Tampa Bay Rays will be played instead in St. Petersburg, Florida.

If the lawsuit payouts, (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by kdog on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 03:16:44 PM EST

won't spur white folks to action, and the protests won't, nor the riots...maybe missing the old ballgame will.

Clean up your local PD and the lawbooks, then maybe we can have nice things;)


: Or... (none / 0) (#56)
by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 04:02:06 PM EST

...management just moves them to Indianapolis in the dead of night.

Something with the NFL Draft... (none / 0) (#55)
by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 04:00:43 PM EST

...I want to say they cancelled the party because of the curfew, or that is what they are saying.

How awesome, here you are a broke A college kid who is very excited to make some of those big bucks, and here comes the Ravens:

Sorry kid we can't toss you a party because the city you are about to move to is in chaos, and by the way, the is a 10pm curfew, here's your team hat, enjoy.

Hard to cancel the party because of the curfew (none / 0) (#60)
by CoralGables on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 08:01:39 PM EST

The draft is being held in Chicago.


The Ravens (none / 0) (#63)
by Zorba on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 01:54:33 AM EST

Did, in fact, have a Draft Party scheduled for Thursday and it was cancelled.

Link.

Scott was correct.
Other teams also had Draft Parties scheduled in their own cities.


The Draft Party was for the fans, (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Anne on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 08:42:22 AM EST

not for the newly-drafted players.

So, while Scott was correct that the party was canceled, he was not correct that it was a party thrown for the rookie draftees.

It was a team-sponsored party to be held at the stadium for fans to watch the actual draft.


: I Knew That... (none / 0) (#67)
by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 09:02:03 AM EST

...I thought it was obvious that I was making a joke. My bad.

: Well, yes, that would be a given (none / 0) (#72)
by Zorba on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 10:12:23 AM EST

Since the actual draft was being held in Chicago.
And I took Scott's comment in part as snark (the part about the college kids).
But CoralGables appeared to be unaware that the teams do, in fact, hold Draft Parties in their home cities.

From our "Side Order of Stupid" file: (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 10:17:42 PM EST

Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered the Texas State Guard to monitor the activities of "Operation Jade Helm 15," a U.S. special forces training exercise in rural Bastrop County, to ensure that it's not actually the first step of a military takeover of the state by the federal government.

Texas: Chasing Its Own Tail Since 1994.

Dear Gawd (none / 0) (#68)
by Yman on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 09:04:06 AM EST

This is the actual Governor of Texas, as opposed to some state rep from the Winglandia district. And the wingers think they're trying to bring in ISIS militants or take their guns.

What the he// do they put in the water down there?


We Elected an Idiot... (none / 0) (#70)
by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 09:18:28 AM EST

...on purpose and this is expected by the folks that voted for him.

In our defense, not really, Perry would have done the same thing.

The truly funny part is anyone thinking that the Texas State Guard could stop the US military.

The operation causing rampant suspicions is a new kind of exercise involving elite teams such as the SEALs and Green Berets from four military branches training over several states from July 15 to Sept. 15

Yes, the people who want the US to invade the ME don't want them training in the US, specifically Texas. Some of my statesmen and women are truly bonkers.


You have (none / 0) (#73)
by Zorba on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 10:21:02 AM EST

my sincerest sympathies, Scott, and I am talking about your governor, and many of the other elected people in Texas.
OTOH, Texas is certainly not alone in electing idiots. Although I'm not sure that's much of a consolation to you.


The Gov is nuts... (none / 0) (#74)
by kdog on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 10:32:44 AM EST

but is it wrong to kinda like the idea of somebody keeping an eye on Special Forces training exercises, and all domestic military activity for that matter?

It's all fun and games until it isn't...extremely unlikely, but not impossible or unprecedented for the military to be deployed against citizens...remember the Bonus Army.


And you would trust (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Zorba on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 10:51:45 AM EST

the current government of Texas to keep an eye on Special Forces training?
I wouldn't.
I understand what you're saying, Dog, and I agree to a very large extent with your mistrust of our government, and our military.
But we also need to be cognizant of who is watching the watchers, and what their agenda is.
I would trust the current government of Texas even less than than I trust the Feds.


I hear ya... (none / 0) (#76)
by kdog on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 11:15:14 AM EST

I should have specified beyond "somebody" and said "somebody besides Texas State Government".

Sh*t who's watching the Texas National Guard watching Special Forces? ;)


: Heck, kdog, Texas Guard units ... (none / 0) (#77)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 03:40:16 PM EST

... couldn't even keep track of one of their own officers during the Vietnam War. With Gov. Abbott in charge, Texas would likely have trouble monitoring a one-float homecoming parade.

Tales of the Grim Sleeper (none / 0) (#1)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 09:31:15 PM EST

just watching this HBO documentary. It is the saddest most depressing thing I've seen in a long time. Not just as far as the terrible incompetent police work but even more about how sad and desperate it shows the lives of the people to be. It's informative on a day when people are looking for reasons for what is happening in Baltimore. There is a particularly sad moment when a woman is describing how she gives her son a list of people to call if something bad happens but tells him he should never under any circumstances call 911. Because they will not help you.

iPad is not letting me link but Google the title and read about it.

My husband (none / 0) (#2)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 09:38:05 PM EST

bought this Amazon prime and maybe I'm missing something but there doesn't seem to be much to watch on it.

I Have Netflix... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 10:14:48 AM EST

...and Hulu, and the gf has Amazon Prime.

Between the three there are like, literally, 10 programs that are different. But there is a lot of content it's just the same from service to service.

I would suggest looking online as the search and user format is much better, then putting it in your que for when you use the TV. That is what I do, searching using your TV is cumbersome IMO, and you don't see everything available, not even close.

The gf has Prime because of the 2 day shipping, which is fairly awesome. The TV content was just a bonus.


Truly (none / 0) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 10:50:27 AM EST

that's a good suggestion because I was trying to use it on my phone and it was a nightmare.

Yeah, I told my husband not to renew the prime because we have Netflix etc. I said however until that prime runs out you need to order everything from there since now we have free shipping


Check their original programming (none / 0) (#9)
by nycstray on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 01:21:22 PM EST

One of their shows won an Emmy


: I Think You Mean 'Transparent'... (none / 0) (#10)
by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 01:58:26 PM EST

...which won 2 Golden Globes and I believe Captain highly recommended it. The only Emmy they received was for their personal recommendations algorithm.
I don't use it enough to notice, but now curiosity has me wondering. Netflix recommendations are so off that they have to be random.
For Netflix, 'House of Cards' and 'Orange Is the New Black' won a bunch of Emmys.

That, I believe is correct. (none / 0) (#17)
by Chuck0 on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 04:29:15 PM EST

You cannot watch Amazon Prime shows on your phone. And another poster mentioned the original program 'Transparent'. In addition to that are other original programs. Alpha House, Bosch (Michael Connelly's LA Detective) and I believe a couple more. Alpha House is written by Garry Trudeau.


Then you're not looking very hard. (none / 0) (#3)
by Chuck0 on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 08:20:38 AM EST

I have 4 Vizio smart TV in my home. All have the Amazon app installed and I pay for Amazon Prime. I'm more than happy with it. I've been able to discover a lot of cable series that I would otherwise not have seen (I don't subscribe to cable. The American, Orphan Black, lots of HBO stuff. Most of the HBO series are archived on Amazon Video and available free with Prime. A lot of the AMC, USA network and FX series are available 6 months of so after the series have aired. Also Syfy shows.


To the people who keep (none / 0) (#14)
by jondee on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03:42 PM EST

saying Pete Rose belongs in the Hall, Rose was an average fielding, lousy running, singles hitter who, in 24 years, never drove in 100 runs, never hit over 20 hrs, and who stuck around and made a nuisance of himself for as long as he did for the sole purpose of getting in the record books.

Imo, he doesn't deserve mention in the same sentence or even paragraph as Hornsby, Cobb, Mays, Ruth, Clemente, Gwynn, Williams, Musial et al

No way, no how.

Plus, he was always kind of an as*hole.

Though, the Hall does seem to be running out of viable candidates..

Oh, come on (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Reconstructionist on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 08:51:01 AM EST

if we were just looking at on the field career, there would be NO question he's be in the HOF, hands down.

Three batting titles. ROY. MVP. 2 Gold gloves. 4256 hits. Lifetime BA above .300. 44 game hitting streak. 10 years 200+ hits. Most career runs scored.....

Played on 3 world series winners.

While I might question his inclusion on the All Century (20th) team (30 players total), there are 240 players in the HOF. Since 1991 (when I think he would have been first eligible) relatively few of the modern era players inducted can even be considered close to him in terms of career.

As I've said, I have mixed feelings about whether he should be ineligible from the HOF or just prohibited from any employment or association with any teams, but there is no question he had a HOF caliber career.


: The hits are misleading.. (none / 0) (#78)
by jondee on Fri May 01, 2015 at 02:16:41 PM EST

he also had something like 1500 more at bats than the next closest player..
And as I recall, his slugging % is fairly putrid. And how does a "clutch" player like Rose never have a hundred RBIs on some of those great hitting teams he played for? Never in 24 years?
Two golden gloves in 24 years is also no astounding feat.

He wasn't as good a player as the others (none / 0) (#22)
by McBain on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 05:02:48 PM EST

you listed, with the possible exception of Gwynn, but he was definitely a first ballot hall of fame player based on his talent. To suggest otherwise is rediculous.

I don't want him in the HOF because he did the one thing you can't do and lied about it for years.


Ty Cobb (none / 0) (#25)
by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 06:20:39 PM EST

...who held the hit record before Pete, was a singles hitter also. Batted with a choked up grip so he could slap it anywhere for a single, then turn a single into a double or triple by stealing bases.

When it comes to character, it seems undisputed that Mr. Cobb was one of the world's biggest cheats and a$$holes. Claimed to have killed a man who tried to mug him on the way to a game, went to the park and played as usual. Sharpened his spikes in the dugout with a file, where the second baseman could see what would be coming his way.

I have no particular love for Pete Rose, because I'm an A's fan and Pete ended all-star Athletics catcher Ray Fosse's CAREER by running him down at the plate in the All-Star game. But when it comes to character, if Ty Cobb can be in the HoF, Pete can hardly be denied.


One of those things fact checkers (none / 0) (#32)
by CoralGables on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 07:43:56 PM EST

would have a field day with today.

Fosse was with the Indians when he made the All Star Team. He didn't play with the A's until 3 years later. He played 40 more games after the All Star Game that same season he was injured. He went on to with a Gold Glove and made the All Star team again the following year. In fact, he played 7 more seasons after he was injured.

You can argue the injury may have shortened his career, but you certainly can't say it ended his career.


: He was never the same player (none / 0) (#34)
by McBain on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 10:54:02 PM EST

You're right, the injury didn't end his career but it did end his career for being a good hitter.

I agree with you, (none / 0) (#33)
by NYShooter on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 08:37:45 PM EST

to a point.

Character wise, Cobb was as low as they get, racist, anti-Semitic, and all around low life. But, as bad as he was, others were almost as bad.

Rose is in a class by himself. For all intents and purposes murder is the only crime in our justice system that carries the ultimate penalty.....death.

And, in my opinion, the ultimate crime in baseball is.....gambling. We can argue forever regarding who get's, or doesn't get, into the HOF, and why. Stats & character are always, rightly, arguable, but, gambling strikes at the heart of the game. No player's statistics or character can destroy the game of baseball; Gambling can.

I've heard a lot of opinions by people who want to give Rose a pass because, "he's waited long enough." But, if gambling is analogous to murder, it should have no statute of limitations. Others claim, as bad as gambling is, he never bet on the Reds, or if he did, he never bet on them to lose. No proof, just their gut feeling. I don't buy it. Gambling addiction is very similar to hard drug addiction. And, experience, history, and expert opinion, tell us that most drug addicts would do virtually anything, commit any crime, perform the most heinous atrocity, to obtain the drug of choice, especially when they're strung out. I just think that if Rose took that first step, and crossed that inviolate line, I don't believe he could have resisted that ultimate temptation to, not only bet on his own team, but bet that they would lose.

To me, it would be like a poker player who had some kind of undetectable gadget that could deal whatever card he wanted. Saying Rose drew the line on betting on the Reds to lose is like saying the poker player claiming he'd only use the gadget for the first 100 dollars, and then play straight. I believe, once he saw how easy it was and he raked in that first $100 pot, forget about it, he's gone. No way he stops.

But, finally, what makes baseball the great game that it is, is that fans arguing with each other about anything and everything is as much a part of the game as the game itself. And so, everything I stated above is just my opinion, and certainly open to every opposing argument anyone can come up with.


: Major League Baseball has good reason to ... (none / 0) (#59)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 07:22:19 PM EST

... fear gambling interests, because those interests once came very close to fatally compromising the integrity of its product.

I wouldn't call Cobb a singles hitter (none / 0) (#35)
by McBain on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 11:10:43 PM EST

Unless you want to call everyone who played in the dead ball era singles hitters. He was a fairly big guy for his day and once led the league in home runs...... with 9..... and often led in slugging percentage.

I would call him a triples hitter.... 2nd only to Sam Crawford on the all time list.

: Who many triples did (none / 0) (#80)
by jondee on Fri May 01, 2015 at 03:03:34 PM EST

Charley Hustle have?
Hustling to stretch doubles into triples, bowling over third basemen..

Cobb was the dictionary def (none / 0) (#79)
by jondee on Fri May 01, 2015 at 02:33:13 PM EST

of unreconstructed. And an embittered, emotionally unstable, racist a-hole to boot..

The wonderful book The Glory of Their Times delves fairly deeply into the pathology that was Ty Cobb in interviews with his ex-teammates Sam Crawford and Davey Jones..

Still, unlike Pete Rose, and in the dead ball era, Cobb drove in a hundred runs seven times, and had a .360 lifetime BA. He also stole a fair number of bases..

Cobb bats second or third, Rose bats sixth..


You talk a good game (none / 0) (#29)
by CoralGables on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 07:18:59 PM EST

But don't know much about the game...either that or you have just always disliked a 17 time All Star.


Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#42)
by CST on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 12:08:25 PM EST

To give a speech today outlining her opposition to her husband's crime and punishment policy.

Very glad to see this, it's another sign she's paying attention to the left-wing of the party.

Here are her comments (none / 0) (#44)
by CST on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 12:46:47 PM EST

``It's time to change our approach,'' Clinton said in her first major policy address since launching her presidential campaign earlier this month. ``It's time to end the era of mass incarceration.''


Sounds like... (none / 0) (#45)
by kdog on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 01:21:05 PM EST

she is still ignoring the two ton pink elephant in the room...the dastardly war on drugs.

Nudge me when she has the guts to talk about federal decriminalization, if not legalization. And an estimate of how many presidential pardons to expect on day 1.

Related...the talking heads we're railing about the lack of fathers/single parent families in regards to the Baltimore riots. Only to fail to mention the man done locked up millions of fathers. Hard to parent from a cage smart guys!


And the Two Ton Pink Elephant's... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 02:25:17 PM EST

...rather bothersome kids, Prison Inc. and Mercenary Inc.

We as a society should not endorse the privatization of anything that puts human lives up against corporate profits, directly.

Corporate America has no business locking people up or engaging in wars. They do enough damage selling bombs and financial services, let's get them out of the human lives business once and for all.


The war on (none / 0) (#46)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 01:29:15 PM EST

drugs is going down the drain and actually I think she spoke about this the other day something to the effect of the meth problem in the country and putting people in jail isn't working and there's no treatment or some such


Nice rhetoric, no argument... (none / 0) (#48)
by kdog on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 01:43:00 PM EST

but as BTD always says, pols are pols...watch what they do, not what they say.

When she was in a position of power to maybe do something substantial about it, she did next to nothing on these issues. These issues may be getting more headlines now, but the writing was already well dried on the wall in the 90's and 00's.

She's 10-20 years behind the curve...hardly the definition of a leader.


Well (none / 0) (#50)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 02:29:12 PM EST

I don't think there's anybody that you would think as a leader in this area then.


Interesting, kdog (none / 0) (#52)
by christinep on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 02:39:50 PM EST

Seriously. In many ways, you seem or write in such a way to seem a believer in the individual to grow, develop, learn. That would be in keeping with our liberal belief that people can become better as they grow. Yet--when it comes to Hillary, you seem to consign her to where she was 20 years ago. If someone held me to that standard, well .... the only thing that I can say is "Thank goodness that I get to age ... because I've learned so much along the way."

Ah, no intention here to try to get you to change your mind. In fairness (as well as in comparison), tho, take a look at the transcript of her talk ... you might reasonably conclude that it is just talk ... but, which major national figure has even gone this far. Whatever you conclude, try to recognize that the tide is turning again; it is actually turning practically and politically in the direction that you seek in reform of the judicial system. It may not be near your list of 'have to' changes; but, it is moving beyond the starting point in the direction that you have championed.

Sometimes, kdog, when things start moving our way on something you have wanted to change for so long, it can be difficult to accept or allow yourself to think it could happen because it almost hurts. That happened to me in a very personal way as a woman attorney who most longed for respect (but acted as if it didn't hurt when summarily ignored in a roomful of men in the early years when I was the only woman attorney and manager in the federal regional office) ... I wanted the chance to be seen as a professional and a decent person in that capacity for so long, I cynically denied it when the acceptance & respect came. BTW, once I dropped my own cynicism about positive change in the federal workforce and allowed myself to see obvious incremental movement (not perfect, but step-by-step change), my own ability to do more and grow was not so constrained.

The issue of women in the workplace, as well as women even on the world stage, is a huge one for me. The matter of our judicial system and the wrongs committed in the name of right seems to occupy that kind of passionate level for you. The only argument this screed of mine intends: Don't lock yourself up or close yourself off by consigning others to a kind of rigor mortis in the past ... just as you have been ahead of the curve on the need for fundamental criminal justice reform, take some time to hear that others are awakening to the reality. Keep an open mind.


You are right... (none / 0) (#53)
by kdog on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 03:14:16 PM EST

that my mind is made up in regards to my vote next year, absent a Bernie Sanders miracle no major party candidate is gonna get it, there's just too much past dirty and present rhetoric with built in loopholes...but you can take heart in I would love nothing more to be wrong about Clinton and that she has changed and is prepared to get radical.

Time will tell Chris, time will tell. As for the Democratic Party at large though...fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I Won't Get Fooled Again.

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

'Like that song (none / 0) (#57)
by christinep on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 05:24:05 PM EST

Saturday mornings were a time when my Dad made pancakes, played all kinds of songs on his weathered 1919 Gibson for my little sister and myself. Politics came between bites at dinner. Youngest in a large family of 10, he and his brothers all played some type of musical instrument--one of the oldest bros played the banjo and led a small band that plied their swing music in the '30s as far away as Rio. I never knew Dad's brother, Ed, because he died before I was born ... what I knew of him was that he was an avowed Socialist; and, my Dad--the ever loyal FDR-Dem ever since the CCCs (the practical program that put a young Dad on the way to a solid job), truly admired the brothers idealism.

So...yes, our family constantly mixed musical ballads and politics. We ate and argued, sang with the guitar (or the mandolin) and danced with the accordion. As I did, Dad loved Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger and early Bob Dylan.

The thing about the song above: The "shotgun" part tends to not do it for me ... maybe like my Dad, I use the music for inspiration to move forward a bit at a time. He always talked about "not sitting there" "do something to make it better" "don't be a victim in your thinking."

Mostly, Dad knew how to laugh ... not at, but with, others. Laughter and love are not the stuff of victims.


I think... (none / 0) (#64)
by kdog on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 08:29:17 AM EST

the shotgun line rings very true...the men with the power and the guns decides. Or at least that's my interpretation of what Townsend was getting at.

And even when changed is achieved, be it by election or revolution...the new boss so often resembles the old boss.


: In Other Words.... (none / 0) (#69)
by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 09:04:18 AM EST

...change rarely means change.

: Those (none / 0) (#71)
by FlJoe on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 09:20:05 AM EST

words were chillingly true when he wrote them and they still ring true today. Alas we do get fooled again and again and again........

(Sigh!) And there's no better rationale ... (none / 0) (#62)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 10:30:57 PM EST

... for opposing Hillary Clinton's candidacy than the 40-year-old lyrics to a song by The Who, because if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.


: You have your sacred scrolls... (none / 0) (#65)
by kdog on Thu Apr 30, 2015 at 08:30:27 AM EST

and I got mine Comrade Don;)

not ignoring it entirely (none / 0) (#47)
by CST on Wed Apr 29, 2015 at 01:42:40 PM EST

"She voiced support for alternative punishments for lower-level offenders and the need to address substance abuse and mental illness, which she said came up repeatedly during her recent campaign trips to Iowa and New Hampshire."

It's not an all-out endorsement for legalization but the framing is certainly better.

Also... the talking heads can seriously go f*ck themselves, if I ever had patience for that cr@p it's long gone. I'll save my outrage for dead people not broken windows. I guess all those cops are missing their dads too??
