Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:





Now THAT'S Leadership


If greasy hair, All-Star game ties, family conflicts of interest, and just all around ickiness don't top your "Commissioner Wish List," why not try David Stern, Commissioner of the NBA? Now there's a Commish I can get excited about. Stern is underrated because he's so good; just as with an umpire, if you are too aware of the Commissioner's existence, it's probably not a good thing. Stern has quietly brought salary caps, consequences for unacceptable behavior, and other necessities to the NBA, while being so unobtrusive that many NBA fans probably couldn't name him and most NBA fans certainly couldn't tell you what the heck he looks like.

And in the last 48 hours, Stern, already an exemplary Commissioner, truly outdid himself. This week, Tim Hardaway made a series of comments that, paraphrased, began with, "I hate gay people because they're gay and that's awful," and ended with, "I wish I hadn't said that because it has turned out to be inconvenient for me that I said it." You know, Tim, perhaps you should try something other than speaking out loud, because that really isn't working for you. Or for anyone, really.

So here was Stern's response, after immediately informing Hardaway that he was no longer welcome as one of the retired players due to appear at today's NBA's All-Star Weekend Kickoff:

  • "We removed him from representing us because we didn't think that his comments were consistent with having anything to do with us. He's on a flight (back home) now."  Any questions?

  • "You tell me why there are Constitutional amendments, why there are federal issues, issues about gay marriage, and property rights. This is a country that needs to talk about this issue." Any argument?

Stern, who as far as I know is heterosexual, took a clear and immediate stance, and backed his words with actions, to speak up against prejudice for the sake of speaking up against prejudice. We need more Commissioners like this. No, it's more general than that: We need more positive leaders like this. No, it's more general than that: We need more people like this.

Well done, Mr. Stern. And be careful, Mr. Hardaway, because karma's a bitch.

UPDATE/MEA CULPA REPORT

It was correctly pointed out that in this thread, I made an inappropriately vulgar joke. So I have deleted the comment, filed a CGV complaint against myself, fast-tracked the process by pleading guilty, and logged a "strike" against myself. Two more and I'm outta here. Dang--karma really IS a bitch!

0 recs | Comment 338 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Not a Stern fan
He goes way overboard with suspensions for hard fouls. As for this issue, good for him, but I think Selig would have said basically the same thing, except he wouldn't have said "the question is always, have you got game?"

by mikeA on Feb 17, 2007 8:05 AM PST   0 recs

And
in Hardaway's defense, he seems okay with gay people as long as they live on Mars.

by mikeA on Feb 17, 2007 8:19 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Really? I thought he said something
worrying about "gay Martians with telescopes checking out my ass". You can't be too paranoid, what with all gay people being sex-crazed predators hell-bent on having sex with you, right now.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Feb 17, 2007 8:22 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Much rather have that
than too lax on hard fouls.  He has let it be known that it will not be acceptable which I applaud.

And it is a WHOLE lot better than baseball who has a suspension and no one serves it for 2 months.  Horrible process in MLB.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Feb 17, 2007 8:29 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Stern still handling damage control well.
BLITZER:  LeBron James said this, he said: "If you're teammates, you have to be trustworthy, and if you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, then you are not trusting."  He makes a point.

STERN:  I don't think he makes a point.  I mean, I think he's trying to be helpful in the debate, but if a person feels threatened by society and by the kinds of publicity that is engendered -- here we are, in THE SITUATION ROOM, talking about the subject -- obviously you could understand somebody not wishing to come out.

BLITZER:  But is this the situation like gays in the military, within close quarters -- the locker rooms in the NBA, these guys are all together.  Is that an issue that it's worrisome because of this -- all of a sudden it's come up because of Tim Hardaway?

Oh, and Wolf Blitzer has to be the biggest douchebag outside of Tim Hardaway. wWhat year are we living in, 1949?

"Kotsay is 31... Kotsay's back is 127." - Jeepers

by Ozzz on Feb 17, 2007 1:48 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

{Applause}
I don't get folks like retired Miami Heat Guard Tim Hardaway.

I just don't understand why anyone would care so much about people being gay.

I'm not wholly unsympathetic to their feelings. In their limited worlds, homosexuality appears to be a rare and different sort of thing. I certainly can't fault folks who, out of ignorance are uncomfortable with what they perceive as the other. They should strive for more and we should strive to help them, but in the mean time, it's a perfectly normal, human reaction.

Then there are folks like Retired Miami Heat Guard Tim Hardaway. What the hells is going on in his bedroom that he is so thoroughly concerned with what's going on in other folks' bedroom? How does one so visceraly hate people he has never met who live in a way that has no impact on him, what-so-ever? Is he just in the same boat as Hitler, Walt Disney and Freddy Quimby?

I mean, I understand folks being uncomfortable with people that for whatever reason they perceive as the other. But I don't understand why they would care, why it would be so important that this uncomfort could rise to the level of hatred. I just don't get it.

by devo on Feb 17, 2007 8:51 AM PST   0 recs

Wow.
The Hitler comparison took, what, six posts?  This thread's going to be fun.
Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Feb 17, 2007 9:08 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I know! What took people so long?
As far as the comparison in concerned, here's my basic analysis: Hardaway had the better jump shot, Hitler the better hair.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Feb 17, 2007 9:11 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

But Hitler's sack
was only half full, or half empty, depending on Hardaway's perspective.
"Is it because I often panic when making sandwiches?" - Crow

by LawDaddy on Feb 17, 2007 11:03 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

It's true, he was half nuts.
"Kotsay is 31... Kotsay's back is 127." - Jeepers

by Ozzz on Feb 17, 2007 1:46 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

The third person I compared him to ...
should be a clue as to what I was getting at.

If you google the three names (I just checked) what I was getting at will become quite clear.

I certainly would not want to draw a direct comparison to Hitler. Hiter's actions led to the deaths of millions and millions of people. Retired Miami Heat Guard Tim Hardaway may have just as irrationally evil of beliefs (or he may not ... one interview is not the perfect lens into a person's soul) but I'm optimistic that he won't be as ruthlessly effective as Hitler in putting them into practice. That's a fairly critical difference.

by devo on Feb 17, 2007 9:19 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Gays are
notoriously bad at pronouncing "chowder."

by mikeA on Feb 17, 2007 9:28 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I believe what you're thinking of are French
people, actually ... and, like any good American, I hate French people, so I'll find it troubling if anyone suggests there is little difference.

by devo on Feb 17, 2007 9:36 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

There isn't
Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.

by TexasAsfan on Feb 17, 2007 9:51 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

he was being sarcastic...
you aren't...

The latter is not good.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Feb 17, 2007 12:14 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Well I'm glad
that you are able to read my mind/thoughts
Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.

by TexasAsfan on Feb 17, 2007 9:14 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

as someone who studies psychology, worships logic,
and practices common sense (that last being the most relevant here), yeah, I felt rather confident that I could read your thought (not plural) there.  In fact, I was going to make that comment merely as soon as I saw that you call yourself "TexasAsFan", but I waited until I had the greater justification provided by your post below, in which you profess to be a "proud Republican."

More like making a commonsensical inference than exhibiting ESP.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Feb 18, 2007 10:08 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

and the best example....
of how republicans and their viewpoints are viewed negatively by most members of this board goes to your post.

Plus I love how your narrow-minded view others who you view as narrow-minded, I love irony

Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.

by TexasAsfan on Feb 19, 2007 8:15 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I knew it...
Everyone from Boston = gay
"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser"

by HugeAthleticSupporter on Feb 17, 2007 4:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That explains
the famous Boston Quiche Party.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Feb 17, 2007 4:09 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

<groans....with season just
starting in mind>
rip 2006, it was nice while it lasted.

by ak_A on Feb 17, 2007 5:04 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Beautifully put, devo--
There's a fundamental difference between being uncomfortable and imposing discomfort on the community in the form of generalized and active hatred.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Feb 17, 2007 9:09 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Stern's unobtrusive?
I join your applause for Stern's reactions to "retired Miami Heat Guard Tim Hardaway," which in a pro sports prism were pretty damn enlightened.  But he's hardly unknown; in fact, he's the pro sports commish with the most visibility and unquestioned authority within his sport since Pete Rozelle.  Labor peace, salary structures, dress codes, hard fouls, international marketing, and a buncha other things have all been Stern-branded actions.  Heck, his biggest criticism is that he can be too ego identified.  Anyway, I bet proportionally more NBA fans could pick Stern out of a lineup than their baseball, hockey, and football equivalents put together.
"If your athame is a spork, you might be a Discordian."

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 17, 2007 9:13 AM PST   0 recs

doubt it
Bettman has a lot of recognizability among NHL diehards...and if you're an NHL fan, you're pretty much a diehard.  I know of no such thing as a "casual NHL fan", heh.
"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Feb 17, 2007 12:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hmm ...
<straight line>I think Tagliabue's pretty recognizable</straight line>
"WTF is wrong with you people TASTELESS COMMENTS. I'm disgusted. Mocking a 10 year old's horrible painful death." --eshock

by rubin sierra on Feb 17, 2007 6:36 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

To Be Fair and Consistent ..
NBA should be equally tough on folks who abuse their wives, who use drugs or have criminal records, etc. - not just folks who express homophobic sentiments.    The last one is the most politically incorrect, but the others are equally unacceptable, IMHO ..

To be honest, I am uncomfortable with political topics like this, because I am a conservative and wondering now, are only opinions from the Left welcome here at AN ??

Are Republicans as well as Democrats welcome to post here?  Just wondering - no offense intended to anyone.

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 9:43 AM PST   0 recs

Great Poitnt
I think it's sad that the NBA won't allow for anyone expressing a "non-PC" opinion to be expressed.  If you want to talk about Fascism, it's incredibly fascist to take action against people who say an opinion that isn't popular or that gasp may make the league look bad. David Stern has always had an iron fist in controlling the league, and this is no different.  The thing to remember is that Hardaway is a former player, he wouldn't try to do this to a current player because of the retaliation by the player's association.

As far as AN is concerned, I would think that everyone is welcome, I'm a pretty proud Republican, and am very active, and I'd hate to think that Republican/Democrat would be a demographic category that would eliminate me from participating in a site that doesn't have anything that directly talks about politics in general.

Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.

by TexasAsfan on Feb 17, 2007 9:57 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Thank You and ..
.. I didn't want to say anything but just the fact that a topic with political or religious undertones might make some fellow A's fans uncomfortable .. I wanted to mention that .. thanks ..

I have no problems with the NBA or their policies, I just wanted to admonish us to be careful to avoid any polemic discussions that could make fellow A's fans feel divided ..

What unites us is our common hatred for the Halos {g} ..

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 10:03 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Forgot to Say ..
.. !!!! ** Go A's * !!!!!

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 10:05 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

AN has members of every political stripe
but, that being said, there's a clear policy against hostile speech, including personal attacks, homophobic/racist/sexist comments on the threads.

As far as Stern and Hardaway are concerned, Hardaway's entire job with the NBA is glad-handing and P.R. -- it's not like he's an electrician or financial expert.  So if he starts creating huge PR headaches with statements like "I hate gay people" he's really not doing his job.

I'm not sure what you mean about the NBAPA.  Is it that if Hardaway picked a fight with a current, openly gay (or even closeted) player, the union would go after Hardaway and the League?  I should hope they would.  This isn't the NFLPA we're talking about here.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Feb 17, 2007 10:13 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: NBAPA
If they tried to do what they did to Hardaway to a current player.  If Lebron were to say "I hate gay people" (which he more or less did anyway) then Stern wouldn't have banned him.  I just think the punishment that Hardaway got was much harsher just because he's a former player, not a current one
Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.

by TexasAsfan on Feb 18, 2007 9:58 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I get it now
I think I misunderstood the scenario you were describing.  I think it would be much more complicated if a current player said what Hardaway said (let's say a very good player like Hardaway was, not the face of the league like Lebron).

In the first place, there's the difference in their jobs -- a player is there to play, and only incidentally (in all but a few cases, like Lebron) to market the league.  But the players aren't League employees, directly, and aren't assumed to be "representing the league" when they speak.  Hardaway, on the other hand, had a job which consisted of nothing except talking up the League.  So Stern or anyone else could say about a current player, "Just ignore him, he's a bozo, and his job is rebounding and scoring, not discussing social issues."  Not the case with Timmy.

At the same time, you're right IMHO, the NBAPA would naturally need to get involved if a member were disciplined.  The players as a whole and the League have signed a legally-binding contract, and it matters (or should matter, at any rate) to everyone involved in the contract that the whole contract be followed.  Furthermore, as an employee under the National Labor Relations Act, the homophobic player in question would have a legal right to express a pretty wide range of political views, and the NBAPA would have good reason to tell the League to stop disciplining and fining members for expressing those beliefs.

Now here's the complicated part.  People can sue under federal discrimination laws if an employer promotes or tolerates a discriminatory atmosphere in the workplace -- even if the boss isn't grabbing female supervisees, if he knows that male supervisees are doing it and says, "Boys will be boys," the company can be held liable (at least, that's my understanding as a non-lawyer -- attorneys here should chime in especially if I'm wrong).  But there's no Federal law banning workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so, unless the homophobic player says what he says in a state with such a law, the League probably has nothing to worry about.  UNLESS the Basic Agreement includes a standard, boilerplate clause in which each party agrees not to discriminate against any bargaining unit member on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc -- the "etc" part often these days includes sexual orientation as a protected category.

So, if Amaechi and Hardaway were both still players, could Amaechi tell Billy Hunter that he wants to file a grievance against the League for not disciplining Hardaway for his statements (on the basis that letting people say those things violates the non-discrimination clause)?  And would Hardaway tell Hunter he wanted to grieve his subsequent discipline?

Like Jay Gould said, "I can hire half the working class to kill the other half."  Hardaway evidently thinks Amaechi's sexual orientation destroys the unity in the lockerroom.  I happen to think that it's Hardaway's hatred that does so, and that kind of b.s. only serves to weaken the players in their struggle with management (to say nothing about the Heat's struggle with the Magic!).

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Feb 18, 2007 11:19 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

hey...
I'm a queer anarchist and I'm glad you're here on this site and have no hatred for you whatsoever.  Go A's!
"Sometimes you gotta destroy a village to save it"- Alan Embree

by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Feb 21, 2007 1:23 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

$0.02
NBA should be equally tough on folks who abuse their wives, who use drugs or have criminal records, etc. - not just folks who express homophobic sentiments.    The last one is the most politically incorrect, but the others are equally unacceptable, IMHO

That's a pretty good opinion for how the NBA should handle their affairs if that's what it wanted to enforce on its players; it would certainly be consistent.

To be honest, I am uncomfortable with political topics like this, because I am a conservative and wondering now, are only opinions from the Left welcome here at AN ??

I am not in any way shape or form part of the rule-making establishment on this board so please just take this as advice:

Political topics are discouraged because the discussion can get out of hand very quickly.  However, politics, morals, values, current cultural affairs (to include the sporting world), and economics are intertwined in complex ways and do, on occasion, get broached on this board.  A vast majority of the boards' members tilt leftward, so you, as a conservative, are the strange-looking fish in the tank.  When topics do get broached and the moderators are either not looking or feel that the discussion is staying civil and actually benefitting the level of discourse and idea sharing on the board, I believe that everything is cool.

Moderator(s) [the establishment], please correct me where I am wrong.

4 8 15 16 23 42

by LowcountryJoe on Feb 17, 2007 10:13 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hehe ... OK .. Thanks ..
.. I still say it is our common unwavering Hatred of the Halos that unites us as fellow Green & Gold fanatics .. {g}

So far as people leaning left or right, or having different religious views or lack thereof, that is OK so long as it doesn't divide us as A's fans, we should all be online friends here ..

Take Care ..

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 10:22 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Oooh,...
So far as people leaning left or right, or having different religious views or lack thereof, that is OK so long as it doesn't divide us as A's fans, we should all be online friends here ..

...a tolerant conservative, huh?  I've always heard that they existed but never knew anyone to actually have seen one, yet converse with one. <sarcasm>

.. I still say it is our common unwavering Hatred of the Halos that unites us as fellow Green & Gold fanatics .. {g}

Yes! But you must be an equal-opportunity hater and despise the Rangers, Mariners [when not feeling pity for them] and Angels all the same.  Hell, you must also HATE the entire rest of the AL; at least until the World Series starts begins.

Let's go A's!

4 8 15 16 23 42

by LowcountryJoe on Feb 17, 2007 10:35 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

No-
I think you have to hate the Halos the most.

by mikeA on Feb 17, 2007 10:48 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

that's a no brainer
as long as scioscia and the rev are around.  
it's tough to hate the rangers as much now that showalter is gone, same with the mariners and bret boone.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Feb 17, 2007 10:55 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

No, YOU'RE wrong
but for the moment you may be right [there's Billy Joel joke somewhere in there], as these things are temporal.  But what happens when the Angels are no longer the more threatening team?  What happens when -- and don't laugh -- the Rangers become the more competitive team?

Your line of thinking leads to rigid and static opinions that cannot flex with the changing climate (the science behind "the hockey stick" be damned).  There's a slippery slope to that way of thinking, Mike!

4 8 15 16 23 42

by LowcountryJoe on Feb 17, 2007 11:02 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hehe .. {g}
.. Well so far as being the "odd fish" I think it depends on the "tank" one is looking at ..

.. the tank of the "entire U.S. electorate" seems, if I'm not mistaken, to have elected two democratic presidents {Carter, Clinton} in the last, oh, forty years or so?? {since 1968 ..}

.. seems that that "odd-fish" Party had the majority in Congress for about the last 12 years {1994-2006} .. and were it not for an unpopular war might still have such ..

So again, the "odd fish" depends on which "tank" we are viewing from ..

{Grin} .. I am just kidding, folks.  I really could care less what your political or religious leanings are ..

.. the one unforgivable transgression is if you speak against my Green & Gold .. THAT will get you a trip to "Rehab" quicker than you can say "traitor" {g} ..

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 11:00 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Flawed (and inaccurate) use of statistics ...
".. the tank of the "entire U.S. electorate" seems, if I'm not mistaken, to have elected two democratic presidents {Carter, Clinton} in the last, oh, forty years or so?? {since 1968 ..}"

IIRC, in 2000, if elections were run in a truly democratic (vs. electoral) fashion, Gore would've been president (he did receive more votes - and debatably, depending on where you stand regarding Florida, he probably should've won the electoral vote also).

In 2004, Ohio had its own shenanigans (we'll never know for sure, since Kerry didn't have the backbone to contest it) regarding voting (im)propriety.  Bush won the popular vote in any case.

Point being, in the last two presidential elections, the electorate has been virtually split down the middle (give or take a couple percentage points).

And ...
Elections since '68
Nixon
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Reagan
Bush, Sr.
Clinton
Clinton
W
W

Given the track record/consequences of the last 4 Republican presidents, I'm not exactly confident in the "odd" red fish, or the legacies of their choices (Watergate, crazy national debt, 'recession', more debt and unpopular war)But that's just my personal opinion.

by Rickeyfan on Feb 17, 2007 3:51 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

But Even Your Objection ..
.. Makes my point ..

The point I was trying to make was, even if Republicans might be in a tiny minority here on AN {and I don't know that, haven't seen any polls, heh} -- they are certainly not so in the electorate at large ..

.. We can quibble about who, in the Electorate-at-Large, has been in the majority, or who has had a plurality, or whatever, for the past 40 or 50 years but ..

.. the fact is we have a two-party system in the USA, and I am from one of those two MAJOR parties, hehehe .. I'm not really an "odd fish" if one looks through the Big Tank ..

Both Republicans and Democrats {and Independents} should feel welcome to post, and hopefully do feel that way ..

.. Heck we are all A's fans here .. {g} ..

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 4:45 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Republicans as a tiny minority
is moreso a result of AN being a sports-blog devoted to a team that plays in the Bay Area, a notoriously non-Republican area.  Add to the fact that AN'ers typically tend to be very logical / rational / numbers-oriented instead of relying on gut-instinct (unless the gut is based on numbers).

I don't have a problem necessarily with Republicans.  I have a problem with people that deny being close-minded (if you're close-minded and honest about it, hey that's your perogative), who are intolerant, who refuse to look at both sides of a situation rationally.  If a Democrat were like that, I'd call him/her out on that, too.

In any case, yes most of us here share the common bond of being A's fans.

by Rickeyfan on Feb 17, 2007 5:04 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hmmm, Just Because Someone Differs ..
.. from you politically doesn't mean that person is close-minded.  Famous expression from Jesus, something about "taking the log out of one's eye" ..

I could argue {although I won't}, that the Left is in some ways a greater threat to Free Speech than the Right.  The whole notion of Political Correctness is associated with speech that offends the Left ..

Honestly my fellow A's fan, I could care less whether you think I am close-minded or not.  It is a free country, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc., that is what makes our system great, and YES it IS basically a Two-Party System ..

Take Care,
Warmly, Ran

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 5:24 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Just b/c someone differs
no, actually what makes them close-minded is the ease and willingness to discriminate against a portion of the population just because they don't agree with that portion's genetic disposition.

what makes them close-minded is the determination to legislate what the opposite sex does with their body.

what made them worrisome as the party in power was their unwillingness to provide a check to whatever the administration wanted.  Instead, they turned a blind eye to gradual infringements on Constitutional rights all under the guise of 'security'.

And yes, that would make me guilty of stereotyping an entire party to subscribing to thaosepoint of view.  Last I checked, I think there were all of two high-profile people in that party with the integrity to publicly think otherwise (the Governator and probably Guilani).

At the same time, don't get me wrong, I don't think the Democrats are without fault either (my biggest beef is the perceived lack of spine as well as not having a clearcut direction themselves).  However, as obvious, I do agree with the spirit of the party (and I'm much more vocal in what I believe in).  I am holding out the hope that with the results of the recent election, the country can move forward again, with support for the middle and lower classes, women, minorities, and education.  Time will tell.

by Rickeyfan on Feb 17, 2007 10:20 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Same Suspicion from the Other Side ..
Hello Rickeyfan,

As I said in personal apology a few posts below:

I do care about others' opinions, in the sense I don't want to offend anyone, especially of my "A's Brethren", due to rudeness or impoliteness etc.  Maybe I stated my view too strongly.

What I don't think is wise, though, is to automatically interpret difference in political philosophy as closed-mindedness per se.

The Right also views the Left with the same suspicion as you expressed here.  Conservatives feel that unelected left-leaning judges, activist judges, tend to usurp the legislative branch of government to impose their social agenda on the people against their will.

For example, polls show that the majority of people still oppose Gay Marriage.  Even Giuliani, whom you mentioned, favored Civil Unions but he did not go so far as to support radically changing the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage.  And the Governator {Schwarzenegger} also opposes Gay Marriage.

I do not think that makes Conservatives automatically closed-minded on social issues.  It just makes them "different" from you.  Not everyone accepts that homosexuality is genetically based.  People differ from you on social issues, it does not make them bigoted or closed, just different.

One thing that I have felt is intolerant or "closed" on the Left is their hostility to religion and to its free expression.  I think it is dangerous.  One pastor in Sweden was arrested simply for quoting the bible from his pulpit concerning the moral stance that his scriptures take concerning homosexuality.

That I find downright dangerous.  I hope we never reach the point in this country where the Left has so taken over the debate of social issues to the point where we have no religious freedom to express differing points of view on moral and social issues.  

You may not like what a pastor preaches from his pulpit, say, if he thinks certain behavior is sinful, but he darn well has every right to say it and God help us in this country if we ever reach a point where religious leaders can be arrested simply for preaching their convictions ..

You might call it bigotry, closed-mindedness, intolerance -- I call it freedom, protected speech.  The whole point of free speech is that someone can say things that you may strongly dislike but they still have the right to say them.  The whole point of religious freedom is that someone can believe things that you may deeply, profoundly differ with -- but that is their right.

I am not talking about proclamation or practice of violence as in the case of the extreme {distorted} form of radical Islam.  I am talking about, for example, the redemptive message of the Christian Gospel.  A pastor's goal in preaching such gospel is to proclaim what he intends as a redemptive message.  So long as he is not advocating violence, but rather redemption, he has the right to call homosexuality "sin" even if you profoundly differ with him and think it is wrong.

The so-called "religious right", and conservatives in general, don't want the Left imposing their values on them. That is what bothers me about Political Correctness, and yes it mainly deals with speech that offends the Left.  Honestly those on the Right view the extreme Left with the same suspicion and fear that you are expressing here.  It works both ways .. Conservatives fear impingement upon freedom {of religion/speech} from the radical Left just as much, or more, as the fear of the Right that you express here ..

Not just Christians, I could have as well said Orthodox Jews, or anyone who takes their scriptures seriously -- have problems with the Left and the tendencies to label them, say,  Homophobic Bigots, just because they have moral and religious convictions that may differ .. To label anyone who may have personal moral or religious convictions on these issues, for example, as Homophobic Bigots -- well it is your freedom to do so but it is also dangerous and I dare say, just as closed-minded as the opposite extreme ..

Take Care, and I do hope we can soon return to talking about the A's and baseball and lighthearted things we all agree on my friend ..

My Brother in Green & Gold,
Warmly, Ran

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 11:31 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

meh, give it time ...
this happened before my time, but there was a time where slaves weren't seen as equal to white male citizens, or women weren't seen as equals to men, or minorities (asians, blacks, latinos, and the current flavor - mid-easterners and through splash damage, asian indians) weren't treated as regular citizens.  Each time, part of the status quo argued against equal treatment, citing Biblical mandate, genetic superiority, or the 'wrongness' of the oppressed group.  Each time, they were eventually overridden and proven wrong.  In another 20-30 years, this issue will be seen as a moot point.  Unfortunately, for us living in the now, we'll get front row seats to history repeating itself.

What I also find disturbing is the right's intent to claim sole whatever over the teachings of the Bible.  As a churchgoer (Catholic at that), I don't find following 'Christian' ideals and homosexuality to be mutually exclusive (yes, that's an opinion.  Likewise, belief that it's a sin is also an opinion).

In any case, I am with you on the impinging of the freedom of speech.  Only through open, rational dialog will people become more enlightened.  And I'm one of the last people to judge people right off the bat without listening to the rationale first.  But if their rationale proves to be short-sighted or ignorant, well, that at least makes them short-sighted and ignorant.  After all, there are people out there who think small-ball is the best way to win a game, but as ANer's we know better, right?

Nutshell
A)  PC has gone a bit far.  Open dialog can be best way to get at the underlying reasons for disagreement.
B)  If imposing the left's 'values' means equal treatment of everyone regardless of sex, race, age, and sexual orientation, then count me in.  Last I checked, 'do unto others' was a primary teaching of many of the major religions.
C) Pursuing a strategy of stealing bases and bunting runners along as a primary means to 'manufacture' runs is win-ophobic.

by Rickeyfan on Feb 18, 2007 1:11 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hehe We're Gettin Closer but, ..
.. Wait just a sec, bible-believing Christians aren't the Source of All Social Evils ..

.. There is a new movie out now entitled "Amazing Grace" that I want to go see and it is highly commended from all I've heard about it ..

.. it is about the life of William Wilberforce in England, the leader of the Anti-Slavery movement.  Christians were at the forefront of abolishing the Slave Trade.  In Civil War times, most of the Abolitionists were Christians.  I'm not sure but {I think} many of those in the Women's Suffrage movement were Christians.  Martin Luther King himself was a protestant pastor, many in Civil Rights Movement were Christians ..

So far as what is referred to as the "religious right", there are devout Catholics of that perspective.  There are Orthodox Jews as well.  I would hazard to guess that your Pope, the Holy Father, and your Church's official teachings, do not agree with you concerning whether a certain lifestyle is sinful .. but I won't go there .. I mean, your beliefs are between you and your God, what is holy to you, etc.  That actually is part of my point about giving folks "space" to believe as they please .. I am not into any sort of Thought Control and agree with you that the PC Movement went way too far in that direction .

We can end in peace by "agreeing to disagree", I just wanted to offer some "loyal opposition" here on AN to help folks see that people on the Right aren't necessarily stupid or blatantly {intentionally, wrongheadedly} bigoted, that they have good reasons and arguments for their perspectives .. they can "hold their own" with the Left ..

Regarding that one comment by CutTheMullet suggesting the Left had the market on intellectual power, I don't know if he was being playfully facetious {yanking my chain} or not, but in my opinion right now the Right and the New Media {Blogosphere, Conservative Talk Radio, etc} may actually have the Upper Hand -- time will tell -- but there is certainly no lack of Intellectual Power and "Big Guns" {brain power} on the Right ..

I personally think, suspect the Democratic victories in Congressional races were due to the unpopularity of the war, also the fact that midterm elections usually go against the party in power {the incumbent president}, same thing happened with Clinton's 2nd-term and the republican revolution led by Newt Gingrich.  LBJ felt driven out of office by Vietnam, it is never a good thing for incumbents when wars get drug out and tax the patience of the people ..

Also if you look at who won in many of the races there were democrats who were running on pretty conservative platforms.  Nancy Pelosi has her hands full trying to hold that Coalition together, IMHO .. time will tell, we'll see, I'm suggesting that the democratic majoriy might last or it might be relatively shortlived.  We'll see, they did not really gain a clear majority in the Senate, not enough to dominate, since the Senate requires 60 votes out of 100 to pass anything ..

ANYWAY .. -- it is the Dialectic, the Discussion, and the Mix which makes our system great.  In the midst of disagreements we have to remember to honor the Consitution and not violate protected speech, religious freedom, etc just because we dislike Opinions of the Other Side .. And that certainly works both ways, I realize there are Extremist on both Right and Left who go too far ..

Finally, I am all for Win-O-Phobic Athletics!  Any fans of the Halos, Yankees, etc who have a problem with that just have to take it up with their local ACLU Chapter, hehe ..

Take Care,
Warmly, Ran

by Randy Bell on Feb 18, 2007 6:21 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

You lost me.
Republicans as a tiny minority is moreso a result of AN being a sports-blog devoted to a team that plays in the Bay Area, a notoriously non-Republican area.

Totally understand that.

Add to the fact that AN'ers typically tend to be very logical / rational / numbers-oriented instead of relying on gut-instinct (unless the gut is based on numbers).

How does that have anything to do with political orientation?

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Feb 17, 2007 5:39 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Can we at least all agree
that political orientation is genetic and not a choice?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Feb 17, 2007 5:46 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Well Hmmm, I Guess that Means ..
.. that Democrats are Genetic Blue-Bloods .. {g} ..

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 5:54 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Thank You, salb ..
How does that have anything to do with political orientation?
I wondered about that too, since if it refers to those who vote moderate to right-of-center, we are speaking of roughly HALF THE DA*N COUNTRY {g} ..

I don't competely concede the point about Bay Area either:

(1) Seems not everyone who posts here is located in the Bay Area.
(2) Even in the Bay Area, although it is majority democratic, I would think ..

Well let's just say when I think of Tiny Minority, it conjurs up images of the Libertarians etc - I mean parties that get less than 1 or 2 percent of the national vote ..

And on the State level, we have a Republican Governor; one of the most famous Conservatives {Ronnie Reagan} was Governor of this State; etc.

I meant no offense, just suggesting it is the height of presumption to start speaking of Republicans as if they are some Tiny Minority Party ..

I would feel the same if people spoke of Democrats that way .. we are a Two-Party System ..

Thanks and I hope haven't offended any fellow A's fans; let's bring on the season so we can talk baseball baby !! {g}

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 5:48 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Not to prolong this even more, but...
I think the original post regarding Republicans being a minority referred only to them as a minority on AN, and not throughout history or in the general population or anything like that.  But if you want to take it there, the Democrats did dominate the most recent national elections.

by ramon on Feb 17, 2007 6:50 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Mainly Because of ..
.. the unpopularity of the Iraq War ..

.. same thing happened to LBJ the democratic president ..

I think this is a great nation but I also do not think Americans have much of a stomach for prolonged and bloody conflict .. anywhere, whatever the cause ..

.. the Gulf War was more acceptable because it was quick, decisive, victorious, and with minimum casualties ..

But anyways, neither Democrats nor Republicans represent any "Tiny Minority", hehe .. whether we like each other or not, whether we coexist peacefully or not .... we are the two major parts of a Two-Party political system ..

I also want to apologize to "Rickeyfan" if my reply sounded too harsh.  I do care about others' opinions, and don't want to offend due to rudeness or impoliteness etc. --

My point was, if simply differing politically with someone causes that person to think I am closed-minded, there is nothing I can do about that, -- nor should I, in a free country, necessarily concern myself about it.

{I think} that is what our Founding Fathers had in mind with the conept of Free Speech ??  It means we may unintentionally offend, we may disagree, we may even cause others to think we are closed-minded ..

I would have problems with the notion that any thinking on the Right has to be:

  1. Closed-Minded
  2. Bigoted & Prejudicial
  3. Intolerant, Irrational
Etc etc.  I would have problems with the same notion directed toward everyone Left-of-center.

The truth is, there are some very thoughtful informed Conservatives; there are some very thoughtful informed Liberals ..

The Mix and the Dialectic, and the Free Exchange of Ideas .. is what makes ours the greatest system ..

Warmly, Ran

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 7:47 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Somehow,
the notion that the party is "unpopular mainly because of the unpopularity of the Iraq War" reminds me of rain, which I feel is  "unpopular mainly because it's wet."

If that doesn't make any sense or seem relevant to anything, please consider how inebriated I must be having drunk continuously since Friday afternoon. (Actually, Friday morning, but please don't tell the students.)

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Feb 17, 2007 7:53 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Shhhh ...
.. We can discuss the Iraq War tomorrow ?? .. {g}

Hey, did you guys realize that last year's San Jose A's station, KNTS, is a Conservative Talk Radio station?

.. hehehe .. {g}

by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 7:56 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I don't associate left or right....
though if you HAD to classify me you'd probably put me way left, but, that being said, every poll ever taken shows that liberals are collectively significantly more educated and more intelligent than conservatives.  And I don't think we really need to rely on George Gallup and company to tell us that...it's pretty obvious in almost any discourse.
"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Feb 17, 2007 8:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

there is, of course...
the irony that John Kerry got a lower SAT score than W.  1220-1180, I think.  Both good enough to be admitted to Yale...
"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Feb 17, 2007 8:15 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hehe .. {g} ..
.. liberals are collectively significantly more educated and more intelligent than conservatives.  And I don't think we really need to rely on George Gallup and company to tell us that...it's pretty obvious in almost any discourse.

Yep - Condoleeza Rice {former Stanford provost} and folks like William Bennett, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewett, George Will, Bill Buckley, Rush Limbaugh etc etc -- all a bunch of dummies !! {