Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
darrylzero
Published Letters: 15 Editor's Choice: 1
I think it's important to take a little extra time to reflect on what is actually at stake in this case:
1) This is regarding paternity cases in which the child was conceived through rape, which is a pretty different set of issues.
2) I think we have a very weak summary of what is actually written in the bill, and what it is exactly that he said, because the press was not actually present. What we do know, according to the Post article, is that his comments made people uncomfortable, and that he was quoting someone who explicitly "instructed juries to be skeptical of rape claims."
I think we can probably agree that a great many people (male and female) will probably say most anything to get or maintain custody of their kids in a loaded situation. But this isn't about divorces, this is about children conceived through rape. So most of the commentary here is pretty specious, in my opinion.
...But I think it's partially because we know how much BS there is in all politicians. If Cheney says something like that, you know he's actually going to do it. Obama says it, and I feel more like he'll push in that direction but not to the point that he'll totally destabilize the situation in Pakistan. You could argue that's a little naive, though I might say that expecting him to actually barge in their and create those kinds of problems would be more naive. But I'll grant that Obama has done very little to earn my trust.
I don't think it's quite a double-standard, though, because Cheney et al have certainly done plenty to earn my mistrust. If they start talking about invading anybody new, I'm not at all sure what systems of logic might constrain them.
The argument about the DH rule only benefiting the AL team in their home park doesn't hold water, at least not all the time. In my estimation, this world series was just as influenced by the DH situation in Colorado as it was in Boston, for the simple reason that Boston went from having an extra (great) hitter in the lineup to having a bench bat far better than any NL team could realistically carry.
You could argue that's just evidence of the Red Sox superior depth, and in a way you would be right. But it's a structural advantage. How many times did the Rockies start to rally only to be faced with the bottom part of their order and eventually their pitcher? If they had Youkilis as a bench bat in those last two games, I think there's a pretty good chance the Rockies could have come away from the series with a victory or two.
I agree there's so much going on that a statistical argument is likely to be pretty difficult. And it's not an advantage that's going to pop up every year, because of roster construction issues on the AL side (and the occasional phenomenally deep NL team). But AL teams have a strong incentive to have one more excellent hitter on their team than NL teams do, and that matters in NL parks as well as AL parks.
Clearly, Manning (or some combination of Manning and his receivers, as fault for interceptions is often a little unclear, though certainly some of those were 100% on Manning's shoulders alone), along with special teams, bears the brunt of falling behind the way they did. But he was also absolutely phenomenal in leading them back, and with another timeout, who knows? He maybe could have gotten them back into field goal range.
Maybe not, but we don't know. Who is mostly at fault here? The players, for sure, specifically Manning and special teams. But that doesn't mean that Dungy's timeout wasn't wasteful. I don't think anyone is blaming Dungy for the loss, exactly, but there was still no good reason to take that timeout and it's tough to say they definitely would have lost if he hadn't taken it.
I don't have much to add here, but a couple of things are worth pointing out:
1) Bonds' head is not bigger. I think we all know he did steroids now, so I'm not trying to deny that, but people should stop using that as a talking point. His hat size is the same it has always been. This information is available.
2) As pointed out, I will be impressed if they can get a perjury charge to stick when they can't a steroids charge to stick. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure they have a plan, but it seems a little odd to me.
3) Saying that deterrence either "works" or "doesn't work" is an exercise in futility. There are no doubt people for whom drug laws have been an important part of their not using. There are clearly an awful lot of people they have not deterred. But it's important to recognize that any set of policies designed to control drug use is likely to make some tradeoffs. The current set of tradeoffs we have is abominable.
Unintended consequences of policy matter, and the structure and violence of drug markets in this country and internationally, not to mention the damage the prison system has done here related to drug laws, far outweigh any alleged benefit of prohibition. I'm not saying coke should be over the counter or anything, but we need a new plan. The current legal regime would be a farce if it wasn't such a tragedy.
In closing, let's not feed the trolls here.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
