- 08:31 AM
- 11/17/24
Seats at Cowboys and Yankees games are ridiculously expensive. Why do they think we'll pay those prices *and* pay jacked-up costs for anything else we buy while we're there?
Because if you're the top 1% that owns 40% of the nation's wealth, what do you care about a $15.00 beer.
And if you're not the top 1%, chances are you are going on the corporate dime and/or will expense all money spent on the game as "meals and entertainment" expenses. Which really means that even if we, the U.S. taxpayer do not get the benefit of the tickets or the meals, we're still paying for it, be it through bailouts, corporate tax breaks or personal tax deductions of those wealthy enough to attend.
They have priced the middle class family out of attending these games.
These days when I go to a sporting event, I buy almost nothing.
I couldn't agree more. Except to say that I extend that rule to everywhere I go. Six dollar popcorn at the movie theater? Much cheaper to microwave a bag before I go. And I bring bottled water everywhere.
posted by cjets at 02:43 PM on May 18, 2011
For one day he couldn't have been a Robert Parish fan?
posted by cjets at 12:35 PM on May 17, 2011
I think the expressing of an opinion is alright as long as it is done in a tasteful manner
I didn't think the expression of the opinion was particularly harsh. It was the opinion itself.
You can make the language as polite as possible, it's still bigoted.
posted by cjets at 11:53 AM on May 10, 2011
It would be weird if the Mavericks became the only thing standing in the way of the Heat winning a title.
It would be fitting. They were on the verge of going 3-0 on the Heat in the 2006 finals before collapsing and losing the series 4-2 to the Heat. Wouldn't the ultimate redemption be for Dirk and the Mavs to beat the Heat in the finals?
I'm a Lakers fan, but credit to the Mavericks. They led the Lakers wire to wire in Game 2 and simply played better down the stretch in games 1 & 3.
posted by cjets at 03:52 PM on May 07, 2011
but the bulk of the fighting (and dying) was done by the big three
But I would agree with you that the landing at Juno was as difficult as any landing during D-Day.
posted by cjets at 06:04 PM on May 04, 2011
So what your saying is that my link proves my point and disproves your ludicrous assertion?
Speaking of ludicrous assertions, I'm reminded of your earlier one:
the US has at a single stroke probably radicalised more fundamentalists than Bin Laden could have hoped to have influenced in a lifetime.
Nice chatting with you.
posted by cjets at 02:57 PM on May 04, 2011
Are you on crack, cjets? Seriously?
You want to refute what I've said, feel free. I'd appreciate it if you left out the ad hominem insults.
posted by cjets at 02:42 PM on May 04, 2011
From your link JJ:
My mistake for saying "any" instead of "sustained."
posted by cjets at 02:33 PM on May 04, 2011
So Soviet liberation doesn't count and fighting in a war doesn't count as fighting in a war.
No, what I meant was that if the Soviets had liberated western europe, all of Western Europe might have come under Soviet influence, rather than just Eastern Europe.
posted by cjets at 02:28 PM on May 04, 2011
Something I learned from Band of brothers
I guess I forgot the *Sarcasm* tag.
posted by cjets at 02:08 PM on May 04, 2011
"Go to the beaches at Normandy some time. All of the difficult landings were done by U.S. soldiers" as though that were some proof of moral righteousness
It was not meant as proof of moral righteousness. It's just more evidence that during World War II some countries did more than others as well as more evidence that D-Day would have been impossible without U.S. involvement.
I've actually spent most of this post praising Great Britain, not the U.S.
posted by cjets at 02:07 PM on May 04, 2011
cjets: Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, India. A mere scratch of the surface via Wikipedia will reveal that not only did most of them have troops on the ground in Europe in early 1940, but that they also contributed the majority of their pilots to the RAF.
First of all, your own links disagree with your statement. Australia and New Zealand did not have troops on the ground until 1941 and that was in North Africa and Greece. There were Canadian troops in France who were evacuated to Britain from Dunkirk, but - per your own link - did not see any fighting until mid-1943.
Second, I said that other countries contributed soldiers and material to the war in an earlier post.
But I think we may be talking past each other about Great Britain's role.. In June 1940, once Hitler had established fortress Europe, his primary goal was to force Great Britain to surrender or invade Great Britain. The Luftwaffe went out on nightly raids, first to destroy the RAF, then to terror bomb Great Britain into surrender. They bombed Great Britain for 9 months, at one point for 57 straight days. Estimates of the dead range from 40,000 to 60,000 British citizens killed during the Blitz.
Yes, Australia, New Zealand and Poland contributed about 100 pilots each to the RAF to help Great Britain. But given the nine months that Britain had to ward off a possible invasion and then terror bombing, all while dealing with extreme austerity and rationing, the island nation of Great Britain stood alone against the Nazi menace (notwithstanding battles in North Africa and Egypt that did little to help Grat Britain fight off the Nazi menace at home).
Your claim that Europe would not have been liberated without the US is as unprovable as the original claim that it would have been.
Sure, they could have been liberated by the Soviets, but I'm not sure that's the type of liberation you're thinking of.
The key to Western Europe's liberation was D-Day. There is no way D-day would have even been attempted without massive U.S. involvement.
Also, given your logic, with which you somehow conflate winning with fighting, the US did not fight a war in Vietnam either.
No, I conflate effectiveness with fighting. France and the low countries were completely ineffective in defending their nations against Germany. Worse than ineffective, certain countries (France, Denmark, Belguim) simply gave up. France fired the head of its military on the day German invaded (Something I learned from Band of brothers). It's this ineffectiveness which leads me to discount the part they played in fighting back against Germany.
On edit: "Something I learned from Band of Brothers" was a joke.
posted by cjets at 02:01 PM on May 04, 2011
Blimey, cjets, that news will come as a relief to the families of all the French, Dutch, Belgian, Polish, Czech, Danish, Norwegian, and Luxembourgish troops who were killed during the German occupation of their countries, not to mention the Finns who were killed by the Soviets in 1939.
Here's the original statement I responded to:
The U.S.A. had a part (a significant one) in liberating Europe. It would have been far more difficult without U.S.A. involvment, and taken a lot longer, but it would have happened. Of course, a lot of countries had been fighting that war since September 1939, not December 1941.
First of all, Europe would not have been liberated without the U.S. That was Churchill's belief anyway. But maybe you know better than him.
And as far as fighting that war since 1939? Well, you got me on Poland.
Apart from that, Hitler invaded the France and the low countries on May 10th 1940. By June 14th, 1940, Hitler was in Paris and the low countries were his. I don't consider losing a war in 35 days"fighting that war." I consider it losing a war. Tommy's point seemed to be that these other countries were helping. I'm not sure how they helped fight the war when they were conquered in a month.
If the argument you want to make every nation in Europe (and beyond) suffered at the hands of Hitler and Germany, I'd certainly agree. But as far as fighting the war against the Nazis? That was the U.S., Great Britain and the Soviet Union.
Yes, other nations contributed soldiers and materials, but the bulk of the fighting (and dying) was done by the big three. Go to the beaches at Normandy some time. All of the difficult landings were done by U.S. soldiers (including Rangers who climbed up a sheer rock face, under fire, to take a German position.)
Britain may have been alone in withstanding the Nazi menace (as long as you don't include any of the Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, Indians or South Africans who were helping),
I said Britain stood alone against the Nazi menace from June 1940 to May of 1941. You want to show me a cite or link that shows how Canadians, New Zealanders, etc. helped Britain in that time period?
posted by cjets at 11:58 AM on May 04, 2011
Of course, a lot of countries had been fighting that war since September 1939, not December 1941.
By a lot of countries, I assume you mean Great Britain, which stood alone against the Nazi menace alone from June 1940 to May 1941 (In May of 41, Germany attacked the Soviet Union). There was no other european country fighting (unless you consider getting routed in four weeks by the Nazis fighting).
posted by cjets at 10:22 AM on May 04, 2011
the US has at a single stroke probably radicalised more fundamentalists than Bin Laden could have hoped to have influenced in a lifetime.
Huh? In his lifetime? That's just ignorant. You might want to read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright.
Whatever his capabilities at his death (and they appear to be substantial based on the treasure trove of info the Seals collected), Bin Laden was the most influential terrorist of his generation. He helped drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the 80's before turning his Jihad against the U.S. in 1997. The attacks that happened under his command include the embassy bombings in Kenya, the bombing of the USS Cole and, of course, 9/11.
posted by cjets at 10:10 AM on May 04, 2011
you're not likely to shake my feeling that so many of "America's" emotions in the past ten years have been mass-manufactured, and are about as authentic as Wonder Bread and twice as fluffy.
Think back to the days immediately after 9/11. Those feelings of both dread and patriotism, of great loss but a desire to fight back, both in terms of rebuilding and vanquishing our enemies, were authentic.
That those feelings were exploited by the government, media, the entertainment industry and anyone else who could profit from them, that is something I would agree with.
But that doesn't invalidate the very real feelings of patriotism and an enormous sense of loss as a result of the attacks.
posted by cjets at 10:44 PM on May 03, 2011
Celebrating the death of a terrorist leader and celebrating the deaths of 3,000 innocent people are completely different kettles of fish.
yes.
I'm just suspicious of idiot kids dancing around with beer claiming this is closure for the terrible events of when they were in third grade.
I'd agree with that to some extent. It depends on the kids and the circumstances. For those kids who lost a parent or relative in 9/11, it could be a real catharsis for them.
But many, if not most of the people celebrating at WTC were not college kids. They were people who lost loved ones, friends and colleagues and had their lives changed by 9/11. Had I been back in NYC, I might have gone myself.
The war against islamic extremists is far from over. But Bin Laden was a wealthy charismatic leader. He inspired his followers and he inspired people to follow him (unlike his #2 Zawahiri). Without him, there probably would never have been an Al Quaeda.
In the war against Al Quaeda and islamic extremists, his death is meaningful.
posted by cjets at 05:01 PM on May 03, 2011
I agree that what McDowell did was bad (and deserving of punishment and an apology to , but holding a press conference to explain to the world exactly how things went down is not something I consider a smart move (if you aren't looking for publicity/money/payback).
And I agree that it was an absurd press conference (as I said earlier). But as I also said earlier, if the Dad felt that he was being ignored by authorities, he may have been told, on advice of counsel, that this was the best way to make his case. Allred may be an attention whore, but she's also effective.
Or......what LBB said.
posted by cjets at 10:29 AM on May 02, 2011
McDowell threatened to kick his ass in front of his young daughters. If you don't think that's humiliating, then you must not have kids.
posted by cjets at 04:59 PM on May 01, 2011
Because I'm not convinced yet that Quinn is a shameless opportunist. Maybe he's just an angry dad, humiliated in front of his daughters and ignored by the Giants, Braves, MLB and SFPD, when he filed his complaints (the braves have already supposedly found "witnesses" - no doubt other members of the Brave's organization - to refute what Quinn said he heard).
If he felt like his complaints were ignored, he might see an attention whore like Allred as his key to getting some payback, monetary or otherwise.
For me, it really depends on his motivations and I can see a plausible reason for hiring Allred that don't involve being a shameless opportunist.
And, of course, if McDowell doesn't act like a horse's ass in the first place, there is no opportunity to shamelessly exploit.
posted by cjets at 12:43 PM on May 01, 2011
I'm a lifelong Mets fan and loved McDowell on the Mets (He was also the "Second Spitter" on the Keith Hernandez Seinfeld episode). And I deplore Gloria Allred.
That being said, the issue here is not that absurd press conference. It's McDowell's homophobic insults, cursing in the presence of kids and threats when called on his bad behavior.
There's an easy solution. Fire his ass. If he wants to coach, let him go back to minors and ride the bus. To focus on the press conference instead of the McDowell's actions feels a bit too much like blaming the victim to me.
posted by cjets at 11:51 AM on May 01, 2011
I'm starting to think you're not really an atheist.
My guess is an Ayn Rand disciple (also a noted atheist) who believes that the NFL is run by 32 John Galts.
In the end I believe the players will benefit from a system that keeps parity between teams and shares the TV revenue equally. If the system went 100% free agency it would only benefit the mega stars who play for the richest teams in the biggest markets.
Is there anyone, Player or Owner arguing for 100% free agency without a salry cap or any restrictions? (It is a little ironic that this most USian of sport is successful because it works as a collective). The simple fact of the matter is that the owners want to decrease the size of the pie for the players. The players don't want to accept that rollback so they were locked out.
posted by cjets at 07:29 PM on April 29, 2011
The New Yorker on the Labor Dispute.
posted by cjets at 12:09 AM on April 29, 2011
My point was when the dangers of football are used in money negotiations by players who played the game for free for many years, and are willing to circumvent the rules created for their own protection, it merely lessens the credibility of their argument regarding safety issues.
How? Do you really have any doubt of the safety issues? That NFL players are getting brain damage, that they are losing decades off of their lives? At best, that they have arthritis and hip and knee injuries that prevent them from having any sort of normal middle and old age? Don't they deserve to be paid more because of this?
And are you really surprised that insanely competitive players who regularly endure vast amounts of pain don't want to come out in the heat of the battle? Do we leave the decision up to the players? Or do we just develop a better test for determining concussions (and isn't that what Peyton, 2 steps ahead of us all, had in mind in the first place?)
posted by cjets at 07:06 PM on April 27, 2011
From the Sun Sentinel:
Marshall has been arrested at least six times since October 2004. The charges against him have included assault on a police officer, retail theft, suspicion of domestic violence, driving under the influence of alcohol and misdemeanor battery.
He has been arrested at least three times amid domestic disputes involving women including the one arrest in March 2009 that involved Nagomi-Marshall. The majority of the domestic violence charges against Marshall were reduced or dropped.
Marshall also testified that he helped instigate a fight on Jan. 1, 2007 that led to the shooting death of Darrent Williams, one of Marshall's teammates in Denver.
Stay Classy, BM
posted by cjets at 09:07 PM on April 23, 2011
The beauty of the single wild card is that it ensures the regular season HAS meaning. A 3 divisions + wildcard isn't about ensuring the best FOUR teams make the playoffs in that league, it's about ensuring the best TWO teams do, as well as two other teams that may or may not be the 3rd and 4th best teams in the league.
Money grab by MLB notwithstanding, that's an excellent explanation of the rationale of the wild card.
posted by cjets at 05:00 PM on April 22, 2011
It's everyone in L.A. who has ever liked baseball, Dodger fan or otherwise.
posted by cjets at 10:30 PM on April 20, 2011
Maybe Prokhorov can buy them, build a stadium next to the new arena and move them back to Brooklyn.
posted by cjets at 08:11 PM on April 20, 2011
posted by cjets at 07:42 PM on April 20, 2011
It's relevant because double jeopardy does not attach to a hung jury/mistrial. The prosecution can choose to retry the case.
posted by cjets at 10:32 PM on April 19, 2011
Yep so you have a guy that a federal court with a bottomless budget
Because poor Barry was stuck with a public defender, right?
during a time when it wasn't even illegal to do so in baseball
Nope, just illegal under federal and state law.
.....but good thing he wasn't breaking any MLB rules!/sarcasm
posted by cjets at 04:43 PM on April 18, 2011
I'd put him in the Steroid section. It seems indisputable that he used steroids. The only open question is whether he "knowingly" used steroids.
And in terms of his never being suspended, a conviction in a federal court would seem to trump any MLB suspension. And, yes, it's for obstruction, not steroid use, but the whole case revolved around whether or not he did use steroids.
posted by cjets at 12:46 PM on April 18, 2011
Just like the dead ball era. It is a part of the history of the game.
I don't see the comparison. In the dead ball era, use of the dead ball was universal and it had nothing to do with cheating.
In the steroid era, a group of players had an unfair advantage because they were cheating.
That being said, the HOF can acknowledge the steroid era without honoring the players. It seems perfectly legitimate and desirable for a Hall of Fame to reject known cheaters. There should be consequences for cheating.
posted by cjets at 12:00 PM on April 18, 2011
Do you really believe that that's the essence of what phaedon said?
I don't want to speak for him. But if I had to sum it up, it seems as if he is saying that that it's hypocritical to single out Kobe when we see it all over TV and when other offenders (Donald Sterling, in particular) in the NBA go unpunished.
It's a point worth discussing. Compounded by the fact that there is a certain amount of (bad) luck on Kobe's part. If he's not on camera on the bench, I don't think we're even discussing it.
But as I also said earlier, I have no issue with the fine. I think it's appropriate.
posted by cjets at 04:25 PM on April 15, 2011
Kobe's just a rapist
Speaking of dishonest mischaracterizations.
I agree with a lot of what Phaedon said. If the camera hadn't been on Kobe, I don't think any of us would even be aware he said it..
That being said, I agree with the fine. I'm glad Kobe owned it and apologized for it (eventually) and I think it's a teachable moment.
posted by cjets at 03:53 PM on April 15, 2011
driving while black excuses
That may have been a part of it. But if I cursed at a cop after being pulled over, I'm assuming that I'm gonna spend the night in jail after he tazes me.
So all in all, I think Iverson made out OK.
posted by cjets at 12:56 AM on April 13, 2011
As the article points out, three of the Jets WRs are free agents. This could be a negotiating ploy with them as much as anything.
That being said, even if this is legitimate, Sexy Rexy has earned the benefit of the doubt from me.
posted by cjets at 06:33 PM on April 12, 2011
But an A's yarmulke?
Easy now. A Jets Yarmulke has gotten this non-believer through more than one wedding without feeling like I sold out.
posted by cjets at 01:39 AM on April 09, 2011
Did you think it would result in posts wishing the couple all the best in their married life together and asking where cards and gifts could be sent?
Heh. Great post Dyams.
posted by cjets at 04:10 PM on April 08, 2011
Some people treat marriage as if it is something that will change them and settle them down.
That's a charitable view. I think it's a PR move and she is what the Gay community used to refer to as a "beard."
All I am saying is give redemption a chance.
Why? At least Vick and Tyson "paid their debt to society." Why should I feel charitable to a man-child who may or may not have raped multiple women and gotten his cop buddies to help in an alleged rape and possibly cover it up?
Why should I feel anything but contempt for someone who wins the genetic lottery and gets chance after chance that us working stiffs wouldn't get in a million years?
posted by cjets at 04:08 PM on April 08, 2011
If Ben goes back to Milledgeville, Ga
That's where they're taking their Honeymoon.
posted by cjets at 02:18 PM on April 08, 2011
Even Mike Tyson is sounding like a responsible adult these days.
Really? He's a mugger, a wife-beater and a convicted rapist (and thats off the top of my head). He has to do more than sound lucid on a few interviews to be considered a "responsible adult."
posted by cjets at 01:07 PM on April 08, 2011
I wanna see the episode where his mom stumbles drunkenly out of a Miami beach bar at 5 AM and slaps the valet.
posted by cjets at 10:29 AM on April 08, 2011
Here's a video I posted in an earlier thread that shows the inadequate security at the stadium.
posted by cjets at 11:49 AM on April 07, 2011
I would seem to believe that the Boston crowds are a lot rougher than the Dodger crowds
And again you are incorrect. Unless gangbangers from East L.A. and South Central make it to Red Sox games as well.
Have you ever even been to a Dodgers game? Maybe you should go to one because what you seem to believe has so very little to do with reality.
posted by cjets at 05:12 PM on April 06, 2011
As tragic as this event is for Mr. Stow and his family, it was still one assault that happened in a very large city. Is the attack on Mr. Stow any worse than for example the assault that happened 2 days earlier in Granada Hills?
Did they assault the straw man as well?
posted by cjets at 04:40 PM on April 06, 2011
I did read the article and as someone who has attended many a game wearing apparel of opposing teams
Same here. I've worn my Jets jersey in over half the stadiums in the country, including Foxboro and the Coliseum (when the Raiders played there). But Dodger stadium is worse.
I've also been to many Dodgers games wearing my Mets gear and it has gotten noticeably worse. Noticeably. Many Dodger fans say the same.
Or more likely it is fake outrage from people like Simers who need to blow events out of proportion to sell news papers.
This is simply incorrect. It is, literally, front page news in L.A. and big news amongst baseball fans in L.A. who are very aware of the deteriorating conditions at the Stadium
posted by cjets at 04:25 PM on April 06, 2011
I don't know what the Dodgers charge for parking, but $20 or $30 is what I've had to pay to park at Jaguars games.
McCourt infamously raised it to $15 from $10 when he took over the club. That sounds cheap compared to Jaguars games. But bear in mind that you're comparing 8 home games with 81 home games.
posted by cjets at 03:33 PM on April 06, 2011
I mean we heard about more maple bats attacking fans at Dodger Stadium in the last couple of years than we have about fans attacking each other.
Maybe this really is just an isolated incident and not the first moment in a plague of Dodger fans turned into soccer hooligans.
Did you even RTFA? I'll tell you what Demophon, I will buy you a ticket for the next Giants game at Dodgers Stadium. You just have to wear a Giants jersey and hat. I'll even go with you.
Just make sure I have the contact info for your next of kin.
posted by cjets at 03:32 PM on April 06, 2011
TJ Simers: Dodgers can't ignore safety issue.
posted by cjets at 11:48 AM on April 03, 2011
More examples of Dodger fan bad behavior. And video.
posted by cjets at 12:26 PM on April 02, 2011
L.A. Times article on the beating.
The victim is now in a medically induced coma and they may need to remove a frontal lobe. This is reminiscent of the Steeler fan beaten into a coma at an L.A. Raider game back in '91.
Too bad it wasn't a Dodger/Raider fan. Most of them were born without frontal lobes anyway.
For anyone who has been to a dodger game in the last few years, this is no surprise. The crowds have gotten worse and worse. And McCourt could care less.
posted by cjets at 11:37 AM on April 02, 2011
So which unwritten rule trumps which?
I'm saying that Showalter gave him the take sign at 3-0 and he swung anyway. If he did that, he disobeyed the manager's direct order. Nothing unwritten about that. Just stupid.
posted by cjets at 05:18 PM on March 30, 2011
Has Showalter been quoted as saying that Fox broke one of the unwritten rules?
It may be (having been on the receiving end of this), that Showalter gave him the take sign and he swung anyway. So maybe Showalter is pissed that he didn't follow orders, not that he broke some ridiculous unwritten rule.
That would make a lot more sense.
From the article:
The Orioles manager was still fuming about it after the game as it apparently wasn't the first time this spring where Fox ignored a clear take situation.
posted by cjets at 01:57 PM on March 30, 2011
SportsFilter: The Wednesday Huddle
For those of you who remember this post, the parents are now suing staples center.