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.

Sox and Johan getting close to a deal?

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...s_may_be_close/

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 print any Hillary speculation. A sad state of affairs, but that's American politics. Why am I thinking of sitting this election out?

Go to bed, Bjorn.

I don't see how Bill Clinton figures into this at all. Papers report allegations all the time. That's why they always use the term 'allegedly.'

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 marriage: ""Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman."

So Hillary is opposed to gay marriage. Say, however, there are rumors that Hillary is romantically involved with another woman. Perhaps even a female campaign worker. Some might say this would make her position on gay marriage hypocritical. Some might say this hypocrisy must be exposed. After all, her position would deny people rights. Would a newspaper or magazine be justified in pursuing this rumor? Should reporters be investigating these rumors and looking to find women from Hillary's past - if there are any? Based on what I've read in this thread, I would guess the answer is yes. However, I hope this doesn't happen. There are far more pressing issues facing the country than whether Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite in regards to gay marriage. In this election I want to hear about the war, education, jobs and maybe a little about the environment. I fear the type of journalism practiced by the Idaho Statesman, if followed by others, will only prevent me from hearing about these issues. Why discuss substantive issues when we can speculate on who Hillary - or Larry Craig or whoever - is sleeping with? You don't think Fox wants the go ahead to pursue the Hillary is a lesbian stories?

I agree that the Clinton vs. Craig comparison is not apples to oranges, but it's not oranges to oranges either.

 

Yes, you have two political figures with private lives that are (or are alleged to be) inconsistent with their public lives. But one of those (Clinton) used his political power to advance the rights of people while the other (Craig) sought to restrict the rights of people.

 

If Craig is going to dedicate his political life to (among other things) restricting the rights of homosexuals, then I am very interested in that hypocrisy given that after taking a plea deal he tried to revoke it and now claims that he just has a "wide stance."

 

I agree with you, boywiththon, that the level of proof that a newspaper needs to print allegations is troublesome. But I dont agree that this is the same as Clinton. And I don't agree that Craig admitted it and so we should drop it. Craig is the one claiming (now) that he was framed. And the revelation that there are 8 others in the wings ready to admit previous flings is certainly news. It's not random and unfair mudslinging. I'd like to see higher standards at newspapers, but this is definitely news and it adds to the debate (that Craig himself has tried to continue by attempting to revoke his plea deal).

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.

And doesn't voting against gay rights while being a closet case strike you as a very unwelcome trait in anyone, not to mention an elected official in the United States Congress?

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, defending the word and honor of Clinton's multiple accusers. Starr didn't merely wallow in rumor and speculation? Damn. I never saw it that way before.

Seriously, Bjorn, no hard feelings but I can't see eye to eye with you on this. I hold the Statesman in the same regard I hold Star or the Enquirer.

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

YOU THINK?

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

Precisely because he already pleaded guilty to the bathroom solicitation.

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.

Several months spent checking the background and details? That doesn't sound like irresponsible journalism to me. There's an existing story out there that a U.S. Senator who is stridently anti-gay is himself a closeted gay, and now there are eight men who have come forward to say that they had encounters with that senator ... sorry, but that's news. They could have printed that several months ago, and maybe then it would have been irresponsible, but it sounds to me like they've performed due diligence here.

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 eager to accept this standard if it was applied to a politician whose views we admired, rather than to one whose views we abhor.

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

Two, three people saying something is one thing. EIGHT people saying it, and with nothing showing up to discredit their accounts, would probably get somebody the death penalty in a trial and is certainly good enough to hang a news story on.

Sen. Craig is a liar and hypocrite. Do you not think his constituents ought to know that?

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:

wasn't this 2006?

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.

Craig's hypocrisy affects government policy. If anything, this is anti-McCarthyism.

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 said, I can't think of a better victim for rumor mongering and muck-raking than the distinguished gentleman from Idaho.

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 exposed for this.

I was never comfortable with how the Clinton stuff was handled, and I'm not comfortable with the Idaho Statesman's reporting on the Craig issue. They seem to have a bigger hard-on for bringing down and humiliating Craig than Craig has ever had in any bathroom stall.

I wonder if he inlisted Bob in this session b/c of his hit with Kurtis Blow...

Mid 60s - late 70s

 

Mostly - early-mid 70s

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.