Alright, kid. Eleven years since the franchise has been the playoffs. Let's do this.
66 thoughts on “June 26, 2015: Towns”
I'm fine, but I still have lots of pastor stuff going on. I'll get Minor Details caught up as soon as I can.
Godspeed.
To continue the discussion about Tyus, this article seems pretty complimentary about his potential (#13 prospect overall and 2nd best PG in the draft class). I'm not very fluent in statistics, so the model used by the guys at FiveThirtyEight may be full of holes ... but I doubt it.
As far as value goes, I'll reiterate what Algonad said, using the picks for an actual player as opposed to selling them as they've done in the past is much preferred.
I would also like to note that this may very well officially end the "Lavine at PG" experiment. Now he can be slotted in as Kevin Martin's backup at the 2.
Did I see that Dakari Johnson fell to the second round?
BREAKING NEWS: Byron Buxton goes to the fifteen-day disabled list with a sprained left thumb. Danny Santana is called up.
Ugh.
He's officially a twin! Hurray!
Same thumb as last year? To the web to find out.
Edit: Nope, it was a dislocated finger.
"(Buxton) is going to have to back off a while, probably at least a month" - Molitor to me just now. Interview shortly on @Go963MN website.
That sucks, but it might be a blessing in disguise. If he's not gone much more than a couple weeks, he can then go on a "rehab" assignment and get some confidence in his bat before coming back up without ever being actually demoted.
What we need is Reusse or someone like him to talk about how Buxton isn't as durable as Prince Fielder.
Judging by this thread, there is so much to talk about today that we can't even get started!
Sorry. Waz bizzy getting gayed.
... I must be missing something.
Google "Ask the nearest hippie."
"mummeries".
That explains all the questions I've been getting today.
I don't know what's going on. Let me ask the nearest hippie.
What do they know about the Wolves draft? 😉
More than David Kahn, I'm betting.
It's been a fun day. The Onion is on point, the celebration is enormous and I got to hide someone from my Facebook feed for the first time in a few years. Viva Love!
I'm thinking I might head down to Pride this weekend. Should be pretty crazy.
Since everyone else is commenting on this, I'll just say that this cements our decision to homeschool the kids. Not everyone is in agreement on this issue, and it's not always a matter of bigotry that drives it. I worry about the future of freedom of expression in opposition to this decision, given that there are legitimate strong held beliefs that lead to a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
I usually shy away from Forbidden Zone issues, but if you care to expound, I'd like to hear what you have to say. I do agree that some people that identify on this side of this and other similar causes are just as capable of being intolerant to dissenting views, which is a shame. So many things would be so much easier if we could actually have an honest discussion about them. For example, the ACA is neither the best nor worse thing to happen to America; it's a system that has as flaws and benefits that could use a good tuneup if we could only have a real debate about it.
EDIT: meh, then again, maybe we shouldn't. not in these halls at least.
You two disagree on this political issue and you aren't calling each other names???
I must not be on Facebook anymore.
I do really love that about this site. It's one of the few places I would bother interjecting in dissent. Mainly, I have hope here that I can speak my piece and feel confident that people will at least attempt to understand where I am coming from instead of immediately assuming that I'm a right wing kook in need of some derision.
here's an interesting article on the potential impacts of the ruling for religious institutions. I haven't read anything else by this site, but this article fairly concisely laid out the arguments from the proceedings of the case and the dissent.
This article raises some interesting points, but the crux of it seems to lament the possible loss of tax exemptions (which I disagree with in a lot of cases anyway). Roberts argues that "[SCOTUS decisions] do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right." I definitely agree that this ruling is going to raise a whole host of other concerns, but just because it raises difficult questions, that shouldn't preclude the entire issue.
This article is beyond snarky (no surprise considering the source), but I think the main point is pretty true: it doesn't affect you (not you, but, you know, whoever). Could some organizations face sanctions of some sort due to their beliefs? That does seem possible. But your article mentions Bob Jones University's prejudice against interracial couples, and I do believe that's a fair comparison. Today, perhaps we look at that practice and say, "well, yeah, of course that's wrong", but was that thinking so prevalent at the time? From the majority opinion:
"The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning."
One main argument against gay marriage is the need to protect the sanctity of marriage. Okay, fine, then why has there been so little protest against heterosexual marriages that go against that grain? I don't remember any mass protests against Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire. Straight people have been driving the institution of marriage into the ground for years. Where is the protest against that? Just because they have that right afforded to them by God and law, do they get to treat it as callously as they like? Two movie stars get married and divorced in two months, and nobody bats an eye (engaging in hyperbole here), but two people that have been loving and faithful to each other for two decades are denied the same right? That seems kind of hypocritical to me.
In the end, the world can be a savage and brutal place. We need love for one another in any form, and more love certainly can't make anything worse. #LoveWins has been the hashtag of the day, and I agree with it.
I would have liked to have joined in on this conversation, and maybe would have, had the day not been quite so crazy, and this coming weekend will be more so. Moving. What ya gonna do? Anyway, the reason I wanted to do so was because I knew this site would be a civil, reasonable place to have it. I've glanced at Facebook periodically today and among the "friends" I have, I'm troubled by both the number of sore losers and (possibly especially) the number of ungracious winners. The "especially" because, I mean, Love doesn't look like that. Others have been perfectly fine in their celebrations, but...
The other thing that interests me is the sheer volume of losers who expressed acknowledgment that this decision was inevitable and the number of winners who said they thought they'd never see the day. That's a strange disconnect, no?
Anyway, sorry for not spoilering this... Everyone carry on being awesome, reasonable, loving people.
FWIW, I've for a long time said civil marriage and religious marriage were similar, but ultimately distinct, different things. If they weren't called the same thing, most of the problems would have been resolved long ago. Civil marriage would have been freely available to all, and religious objectors would have had a modicum of peace and control over their own domain. Think divorce and annulment. Similar, but different enough that it's workable.
I think marriage has been ground down to a pretty general standard by this point though. Perhaps you're right that it would have prevented some arguments, but how is that any different than Marriage vs. Civil Union? I think the objection to that difference is a very valid argument.
I am similarly convinced by the "seperate but equal" argument. That's why I don't mean to suggest we should have "marriage" and "civil unions" on the civil side of things. I mean to suggest we should only have civil unions, for everyone, heterosexual, homosexual, etc. And if an individual faith wants to put restrictions on marriage, so be it. If they want to expand the definition, so be it. Etc.
I would not be surprised to see some (many?) states move to separate the religious function from the civil function. I have read/heard concerns about how this ruling could infringe upon religious freedom and "force" churches/religious leaders to do things they deeply oppose.
While I am on the side of "get over it" on the religious aspect, I guess I understand to some degree. The easiest solution is to remove the civil function ("by the power vested in me by the state of ___") entirely from private citizens. Just require everyone who wants a marriage license to get it signed by an actual government official. Let clergy be clergy. Boom.
With regard to how this is going to affect religious institutions, it's not so much that legal gay marriage is going to do anything, but rather the principle of protecting sexual orientation from discrimination, which was at the crux of this case.
As gays and lesbians get more legal protection (which is certainly necessary in some areas), this creates a conflict with those who are religiously opposed to such practices. This is clearly evident in the several cases involving bakers, florists, landowners, etc who provide products and services for weddings. They have already been persecuted BEFORE Obergefell. This case will only work to further enhance the persecution.
A compromise is possible, as long as respect toward religion is maintained. My fear is that as society becomes more secular in nature, this respect toward religion and the religious is going to diminish more and more, to the point where the tables will turn and the religious will have to hide in the closet.
calling the folks who are being called out for, or even seeing legal action against them for discriminating against gays (for whatever their reasons, it's still discrimination) "persecuted" is just maybe a bit over the top.
Just require everyone who wants a marriage license to get it signed by an actual government official. Let clergy be clergy. Boom.
This is exactly what I was saying. I'd suggest that the situation where religious persons were/are serving a state function was possibly an unconstitutional entanglement of church and state.
calling the folks who are being called out for, or even seeing legal action against them for discriminating against gays (for whatever their reasons, it's still discrimination) "persecuted" is just maybe a bit over the top.
I disagree, in part. In some cases, sure, "calling out" has been what has happened. There's nothing wrong with people voting with their wallets and not supporting a business, etc. But in plenty of cases what was happening has gone far beyond "calling out." We're talking about livelihoods and lives being threatened. And though you have posited a non-discrimination policy that looks at the level of individuated services, that is not the policy in all places. You think it's a good place to draw the line. I agree. But not everyone has, and in some places the law requires people to engage in individuated actions that support same sex marriage, or else face legal consequences. And we'll probably see more of that now. And when the law goes that far, I think it would be fair to call it persecution. Or at very least, something approximating it.
My objection to the term "persecution" is general. It has been used much too easily by pundits and others to describe the hurt feelers of certain folks offended by changes in law and society. As opposed to, say, the actual persecution (jailings, beatings, murders, public humiliations, ostracisms, etc.) that gays suffered for generations in our society.
that's not to say that real harm has not been done in a VERY SMALL set of select cases in the last couple of years to individuals who've vocally opposed gay rights. I'm just suggesting that "persecution" is not the right term.
If the day comes when teh Gays take over and send cops to beat anti-gay Christians senseless, arrest them, and humiliate them, and for employers to fire them, neighbors and family members to shun them, businesses to refuse to do business with them, mental health professionals define them as mentally ill and churches refuse to minister to them because of who they are, then I will recognize that as persecution.
I can understand the desire for equivalency. All those things were done to gay people (and plenty of other minorities, including religious, throughout history), and wrongly so. But we needn't reach equivalency before we hit the point of wrongness. Any one of those things, even in lesser forms, is wrong, and should be decried as such. At the point at which any of that wrongness is prescribed in law or widely embraced in society, it becomes persecution.
Off-topic, but appropriate to Philo and in response to bs's reliance on a specific word. I had an attorney the other day say that his client was "tortured" because she wasn't allowed to use the bathroom before they read her the IC Advisory. The judge FLIPPED out on him. "Torture?! Did you say torture?! Are you standing here before me and claiming the xxx Police Department tortured your client like at Abu Ghraib?!"
This was the same attorney, by the way, who mouthed off to a judge who ruled from the bench about consent. The judge responded by saying, "You're awfully cocky for an attorney who never wins." Both of these incidents happened in front of his clients.
At the point at which any of that wrongness is prescribed in law or widely embraced in society, it becomes persecution.
One last quick point: this is not in any way a religious decision; this is a wholly secular decision, which is as it should be. Here's an article on the actual mechanisms as it ties into precedent (h/t [WGOM citizen]). It focuses specifically on Thomas' dissent, but still highlights some of the legal ramifications fairly well.
Again, this country is not one based in religious fundamentalism (though many shades of grey exist, as well as those who seem to think it should be), but of freedom. Yes, freedom to pursue your religion is afforded to us, but religious objections should not interfere with what is acceptable by law.
I completely agree with you about the sanctity of marriage argument. The way our society treats marriage is really shameful. I personally believe that marriage is a sacramental covenant, which makes people that treat marriage as a game or a convenience to be discarded as soon as it stops being fun more harmful to marriage as an institution.
I would differ somewhat. Marriage as a "sacramental covenant" historically, had asymmetric effects. It was not until fairly recently that women gained sufficient equality before the law in property rights, contracting rights, employment rights, etc. (and the changes in the technology of birth control). Those fundamentally changed the strategic nature of marriage by giving women exit options and more self-determination.
I don't see that as trivializing marriage so much as increasing individual liberty and autonomy.
I would differ with your interpretation of the sacramental covenant aspect. I would argue that while abuses certainly occurred in the past and still occur today, the sacrament of marriage as ordained by Christ (and described by Paul with the ever memorable "wives be subservient to your husbands, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church") was and is truly a combination of two people into one. The reason my wife stays home with the kids is that we both believe it is best for the kids, not because she is repressed. The reason we chose not to use birth control isn't because we're ignorant or that I want her to be tied to me, but because we both believe that our sexuality is tied intrinsically to our life giving nature, and that to reject that would be to reject God. Because of this, people who have casually used marriage and tossed it away when it was inconvenient laid the groundwork for a belief that marriage is only a contract between two people for the duration of their enjoyment. The use of birth control has further frayed the bonds between sex and procreation. Additionally, it's encourages the belief that men are women differ only by their parts, rather than having different, equal, and complementary natures.
As an edit, I fully understand that my views are extremely uncommon. While I am more than happy to discuss them, I understand that they are unlikely to ever become mainstream, and would even be hesitant to suggest that the law ever be brought into line with them (it would be far too religious in nature - a clear violation of the separation of Church and state). With that said, my hope is that by discussing them, the opposing position may be clearer, that this isn't a reaction based on a dislike of gays, etc. The only major concern I have is the type of thing pumanbowler described above - people forced to acknowledge and participate in ceremonies they have a religious objection to.
You are definitely going to be "forced to acknowledge" the legality of marriages.
One of the hard parts for society, in my view, is how to draw reasonable lines regarding what counts as "participation" in someone else's marriage. The hard-line "freedom of association" libertarians would argue that businesses have zero obligation to do business with anyone. Others, with whom I'm more in line, distinguish between highly individuated services (e.g., actually performing services AT a gay wedding, such as officiating or taking wedding photos, or baking/decorating a highly individualized wedding cake) and commoditized services (selling flowers or a generic cake), as well as making arguments about "implied contracts" associated with putting one's shingle out to advertise services.
as an aside, I didn't mean to imply anything about birth control availability other than the empirical fact that it has changed the terms of trade generally between men and women. Those facts don't have to mean anything in any specific case. I've been married for 27 years; I'm certainly invested in my marriage well beyond any simply economic partnership.
Anyway, I appreciate the efforts you've made to state a case.
I phrased part of my earlier statement about "sacraments" poorly in response to rpz.
I have no problem with religious marriage per se at all. I was married in a synagogue by a rabbi, in a religious ceremony. It was a beautiful ceremony, with important ethical content.
I should have been more careful in my response to rpz's comment that "The way our society treats marriage is really shameful." He focused on religious marriage, whereas I commingled the religious with the civil.
It is incontrovertibly true, historically, that Western society (and most others, but I'm not commenting on those) has treated men and women asymmetrically in ways that have been detrimental to women. Recent developments in law and technology have dramatically changed the opportunity costs of marriage and exit from marriage for women. The consequences were obvious: a tremendous surge in the divorce rate and a drop in the marriage rate in the 1960s and 1970s.
But we've re-equilibrated. The demise of western civilization is greatly exaggerated, as shown here:
The divorce rate (both the raw rate and the rate per 1000 marriages) has declined quite dramatically since the early 1980s. This should tell us something: people who probably shouldn't have been getting married in the first place were getting married prior to the 1980s. Prior to the 1960s, they stayed married, probably unhappily or even separated-but-not-divorced. Increasingly today, they don't get married in the first place.
Combine those facts with the strong secular declines in abortion rates, teen pregnancy rates, and out-of-wedlock birth rate, I'm much more sanguine about the future of marriage as an institution than many of my conservative (religious and otherwise) friends. It is a durable institution. It has changed over the centuries and continues to change and adapt to society.
Having now had a chance to read the opinions, I want to express my disappointment with Justice Scalia. Normally, I have found that if I disagree with his constitutional dissents, I at least enjoy reading them because he's so eloquent, persuasive, and biting ("might as well ask random people in the Kansas City phonebook"),but yesterday's was just so lazy and uninteresting. The best he could come up with is that the Court is too full of elite New Yorkers. C'mon, he can do better than that.
Personally, I think Scalia's getting old and tired and very GOML-y. I like him and agree with him most of the time, but I agree with you in that I think he's starting to lose his composure a bit.
On a scale of one to Joe West, that's pretty tame. He didn't bother ejecting Maddon and I think umpires do have some kind of right to tell pitchers that they aren't going to listen to them complain about balls and strikes all day. But you're right in that it would be better to deal with such things between innings rather than between hitters.
Or better than charging the mound. Baseball seems to be the only sport where impartiality is just not high on the list of the officiators.
Yea, that was not cool. And in the second inning? Wow. On both sides, wow. Lester didn't even have a legit beef. How the hell is swearing at the Ump gonna get you more favorable calls?
Giving Lester the benefit of the doubt, he was complaining about earlier calls in the PA that got him to the full count. I've noticed that pitchers seem to wait to complain about the calls until after the PA is over.
I'm generally with you that swearing at the ump isn't going to help your cause, but it might depend on the umpire. Some may subconsciously give in to that type of persuasion, others might just put the screws to you worse.
I guess I don't understand your comment on impartiality. I think we can safely assume that Lester was complaining about balls and strikes, so it's not as though the umpire is just making stuff up here. This falls under the category where it's nice for us if the umpire has thick skin, but he shouldn't really have to put up with it in the first place. If the catcher doesn't get between the ump and the pitcher, it would also look less confrontational.
I'm fine, but I still have lots of pastor stuff going on. I'll get Minor Details caught up as soon as I can.
Godspeed.
To continue the discussion about Tyus, this article seems pretty complimentary about his potential (#13 prospect overall and 2nd best PG in the draft class). I'm not very fluent in statistics, so the model used by the guys at FiveThirtyEight may be full of holes ... but I doubt it.
As far as value goes, I'll reiterate what Algonad said, using the picks for an actual player as opposed to selling them as they've done in the past is much preferred.
I would also like to note that this may very well officially end the "Lavine at PG" experiment. Now he can be slotted in as Kevin Martin's backup at the 2.
Did I see that Dakari Johnson fell to the second round?
BREAKING NEWS: Byron Buxton goes to the fifteen-day disabled list with a sprained left thumb. Danny Santana is called up.
Ugh.
He's officially a twin! Hurray!
Same thumb as last year? To the web to find out.
Edit: Nope, it was a dislocated finger.
Tommy John announcement coming in a month.
That sucks, but it might be a blessing in disguise. If he's not gone much more than a couple weeks, he can then go on a "rehab" assignment and get some confidence in his bat before coming back up without ever being actually demoted.
What we need is Reusse or someone like him to talk about how Buxton isn't as durable as Prince Fielder.
Judging by this thread, there is so much to talk about today that we can't even get started!
Sorry. Waz bizzy getting gayed.
... I must be missing something.
Google "Ask the nearest hippie."
"mummeries".
That explains all the questions I've been getting today.
I don't know what's going on. Let me ask the nearest hippie.
What do they know about the Wolves draft? 😉
More than David Kahn, I'm betting.
It's been a fun day. The Onion is on point, the celebration is enormous and I got to hide someone from my Facebook feed for the first time in a few years. Viva Love!
I'm thinking I might head down to Pride this weekend. Should be pretty crazy.
Hold on a minute gentlemen!
I must not be on Facebook anymore.
I do really love that about this site. It's one of the few places I would bother interjecting in dissent. Mainly, I have hope here that I can speak my piece and feel confident that people will at least attempt to understand where I am coming from instead of immediately assuming that I'm a right wing kook in need of some derision.
I would have liked to have joined in on this conversation, and maybe would have, had the day not been quite so crazy, and this coming weekend will be more so. Moving. What ya gonna do? Anyway, the reason I wanted to do so was because I knew this site would be a civil, reasonable place to have it. I've glanced at Facebook periodically today and among the "friends" I have, I'm troubled by both the number of sore losers and (possibly especially) the number of ungracious winners. The "especially" because, I mean, Love doesn't look like that. Others have been perfectly fine in their celebrations, but...
The other thing that interests me is the sheer volume of losers who expressed acknowledgment that this decision was inevitable and the number of winners who said they thought they'd never see the day. That's a strange disconnect, no?
Anyway, sorry for not spoilering this... Everyone carry on being awesome, reasonable, loving people.
On that, we certainly agree.
I phrased part of my earlier statement about "sacraments" poorly in response to rpz.
In case anyone missed it yesterday, more umpire jackassery.
On a scale of one to Joe West, that's pretty tame. He didn't bother ejecting Maddon and I think umpires do have some kind of right to tell pitchers that they aren't going to listen to them complain about balls and strikes all day. But you're right in that it would be better to deal with such things between innings rather than between hitters.
Or better than charging the mound. Baseball seems to be the only sport where impartiality is just not high on the list of the officiators.
Yea, that was not cool. And in the second inning? Wow. On both sides, wow. Lester didn't even have a legit beef. How the hell is swearing at the Ump gonna get you more favorable calls?
Giving Lester the benefit of the doubt, he was complaining about earlier calls in the PA that got him to the full count. I've noticed that pitchers seem to wait to complain about the calls until after the PA is over.
I'm generally with you that swearing at the ump isn't going to help your cause, but it might depend on the umpire. Some may subconsciously give in to that type of persuasion, others might just put the screws to you worse.
I guess I don't understand your comment on impartiality. I think we can safely assume that Lester was complaining about balls and strikes, so it's not as though the umpire is just making stuff up here. This falls under the category where it's nice for us if the umpire has thick skin, but he shouldn't really have to put up with it in the first place. If the catcher doesn't get between the ump and the pitcher, it would also look less confrontational.
Introducing TEEN WOLF!
Okay, I can get behind this.
Amazing. The KG payoff is incredible.
Disney Parks have banned selfie sticks, effective this coming Tuesday. Everything's coming up Milhouse today, people.
Thank the gods. The selfie stick is the worst thing evah.
Ex-Twin Pete Mackanin is the interim manager of the Phillies now that Ryne Sandberg has resigned.
Beau and I played an epic cribbage match, with me narrowly eeking out a 2-1 victory.