boywiththorninside

WFAN's Yankees reporter is saying the Yankees seem resigned to the fact that Santana is going to Boston. Also, the Boston deal would be the one that includes Lester, Crisp, and two prospects. Looks like the Sox might get Santana and keep Ellsbury. Of course, nothing is final, but if that happens...well done, Boston. What does Oakland want for Haren?

I hope to see "You Are My Face" on some lists. I just rediscovered that song.

Wow. I don't know what to think. The other Yankee fans I talk to will be happy to hear this. They didn't want to give up the young pitchers. I'm not so sure. I'm short sighted. I've said it before, but the Santana, Beckett, Dice-K, etc. rotation scares the bejeesus out of me. Maybe these latest reports will inspire young Hank to do something completely irrational.

Can I get a copy of Grit in Brooklyn? I wouldn't mind checking that out.

I think this was the same blogger who was spreading last weeks Trent Lott rumor: Hillary Lesbian Rumor Given Weight By DOJ Official Here as well - what do you know? A Murdoch publication: Times article - lesbian rumor mention inside This is the type of crap I'd like to avoid over the next year. If the Idaho Statesman model is followed, expect to see more of it. I'm just saying. If some unsubstantiated (no definitive evidence) Hillary stuff does arise, the moral high ground has been surrendered. If it was acceptable to print the latest Craig allegations, it has got to be okay to pri

I don't blame you if you didn't read the whole thread, but Bill was used as an example of what happens when people feel justified to go to any and all lengths to expose a perceived hypocrisy. The Right thought Bill was a hypocrite about women and women's issues (sexual harassment - Jones, et. al). The Right felt justified in trying to expose and bring him down. The Right felt he deserved it. The Right, aided somewhat by Bill, gave us years and years of BS. The current Craig situation is not a direct analogy, but that was the basic point. But how about Hillary Clinton? Hillary on gay marr

That's fair. I'm sorry if I got pissy with anyone. It wasn't intentional. It's just the notion that an accused person (no matter who that person is) must now bear the burden of proof really gives me the heebie-jeebies - even if it is only in regard to the publication of a news story and not in a court of law. Again, no hard feelings. "Eight Men Out" was a great subject header.

I get it, Craig's a hypocrite and this makes the Statesman's actions a-ok. I'm sorry, but I'm going back in the thread now. Clinton supported sexual harassment laws while being accused by the right of being a serial sexual harasser. The right thought this was hypocritical. So following the logic that assumed hypocrisy is worth exposing at seemingly all costs, I guess the time spent on Paula Jones and others was worthwhile then. I'm really going to have to reevaluate my thoughts on the '90's. Ken Starr wasn't a puritan a-hole? He was merely a crusader against Clinton's apparent hypocrisy,

I'll take the chimp face for not knowing it wasn't for me.

I honestly don't know what to think relating to politics anymore. I deserve the chimp face.

If the paper had definitive evidence then, based on Craig's plea, I would agree they should have printed the story. The paper admitted it had no definitive evidence. This new story adds nothing. There's been a lot of innuendo in the past. This is merely more of it. You spend several months investigating and you can't get definitive proof. For me, that is a good reason not to print the story. Again, my main issue is the "accused has the burden of proof" standard the Statesman is endorsing. I would hate to think this is now the norm. It reeks of McCarthyism. I don't think anyone would be

The quote thing ain't working for me, so I went old-school. Copy and paste. QUOTE (bjorn_skurj @ Dec 3 2007, 02:20 PM) Sen. Craig is a liar and hypocrite. Do you not think his constituents ought to know that? QUOTE (boywiththorninside @ Dec 3 2007, 04:33 PM) Craig already pleaded guilty to the bathroom solicitation, why pile on with a story for which there is no definitive evidence? What does this new story add to what was already known? That there are eight more men

An arbitrary number of people accuse an individual of something and there is nothing to prove it didn't happen, this makes it okay to run a story? I love this:

I can only guess it was released later in the UK.

Torre couldn't get out of the first round with his payroll. Randolph couldn't make the post-season with his. There is no scientific formula for what it is Francona did, but you can't deny the result. He and his team won. He's got some freaks on that team and he seemed able to keep them together and focused enough to win. I think the award is well-deserved. I hate the fact I can't hate Tito.

Uncut Magazine's Top 50: 50 Dinosaur Jr. - Beyond 49 Ry Cooder - My Name Is Buddy 48 Thurston Moore - Trees Outside the Academy 47 Nick Lowe - At My Age 46 Von Sudenfed - Tromatic Reflexxions 45 Richard Hawley - Lady's Bridge 44 Maps - We Can Create 43 Manic Street Preachers - Send Away the Tigers 42 Richard Thompson - Sweet Warrior 41 Justice -

No one managed Eric Gagne better. I kid. He deserved it. In other news: the Houston Chronicle is reporting that Pettite is returning to the Yankees.

When did I ever mention Lewinsky? Clinton supported sexual harassment laws while being accused of sexual harassment himself - the aforementioned Broderick, Jones, Willey. Craig opposed gay rights while being accused of being a closeted homosexual who repeatedly propositioned other men. In each case, public political support seemed to contradict the speculated private act. This seems like oranges and oranges to me, but whatever. Proceed with the witch hunt. He's a Republican.

The right alleged Clinton was a hypocrite on women's issues. Clinton didn't have any control over government policy regarding women's issues? He didn't appoint people to a court which could potentially decide on certain issues sometimes considered important to women? I'm not looking to get into a big debate, and I certainly don't want to defend Craig. The reporting here and how it is apparently "justified" just makes me a little uncomfortable.

That's how the right-wing felt about Clinton. There was no one better to spread rumors about. I think it was called the politics of personal destruction in the 90's. It was looked down upon.

I'm sure the Idaho Statesman feels its actions are justified by Craig's voting record, but, still, their reporting has a Sexual McCarthyism feel to it. It kind of reminds me of all the right-wing claims against Clinton over his alleged misadventures with women. The right-wing felt partially justified in championing the claims of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick, et al., because of Clinton's proclaimed support for women's rights issues. Besides just having a knee-jerk hate for Clinton, they felt he was a hypocrite when it came to women and women's issues and that he should be exp

I didn't exist yet.

Curtis Mayfield's estate should have sued. RIP, Evel. I don't recall Evel's heyday, but I always loved the Evel-inspired "Bart the Daredevil" Simpsons episode.

Background check on Church: not good "The Washington Nationals suspended a volunteer chaplain and distributed an apology from outfielder Ryan Church yesterday, two days after Church was quoted in a front-page Post article as suggesting that Jews are headed for eternal damnation." Yikes. New York City might not be the best fit.