One of the things which astonishes me about the conservative embrace of Donald Trump is that it has been done despite his virulent anti-Americanism?
When Bill O'Reilly declared Russian President Vladimir Putin to be a killer in his pre-Super Bowl interview with Trump, the President said, "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers. Well, you think our country is so innocent."
It was reminiscent of when Trump was challenged by Joe Scarborough in 2015 about Putin's human rights record against journalists, the President said, "Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe."
So President Trump is now twice on record that he believes the United States does plenty of killing and that we have a lot of killers.
If President Trump says this a third time, someone must ask him three questions.
Who are our killers?
Who have they killed?
What are their names?
If President Trump is ever asked these questions and answers them I suspect he will be every bit as anti-American as the people at Berkeley who rioted against him the other night.
Sunday, February 5, 2017
A Political Baseball: My Reply to Nicholas Frankovich on Curt Schilling
You may recall that last month, I got my first article published at National Review Online last month arguing that Curt Schilling shouldn't be excluded from the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his support for President Trump and his conservative politics generally.
NRO editor Nicholas Frankovich has weighed in on The Corner and takes issue with my argument:
A few problems dog that theory. One is that Schilling did better in the 2017 voting than he’s done on average in his five years of eligibility. Remember, the procedure is that every baseball writer with a vote selects up to ten names from a list. Most writers select fewer than ten. In 2017, the percentage who included Schilling among their picks was lower than in 2016 but higher than in 2013, 2014, and 2015, his only other years on the ballot. (Frankovich produces a graph).
You could come up with a hundred theories for why the dips (2014, 2017) and the spike (2015–16) occurred when they did. Aaron correlates the second dip, but not the earlier dip or the spike, with Schilling’s political activism. I don’t see it.
Frankovich swings and misses. I devoted two paragraphs to correlating the first dip:
Yet when the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) unveiled the results of the 2017 Hall of Fame balloting on January 17, Schilling was selected on only 45 percent of the ballots. (Each voter may select a maximum of ten players.) That was well short of the 75 percent required for induction. What was eye-popping was that his share of the vote in 2016 was 52.3 percent. Of course, this isn’t the first time Schilling’s vote total has dropped. In 2014, his second year of eligibility, his vote declined from 38.8 to 29.2 percent. That was not attributable to politics. Rather, the juggernaut of Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas, on the ballot for the first time, depressed the vote of other players. Jeff Bagwell and Tim Raines, who will be inducted in July, along with Ivan Rodriguez, saw their vote drop 5.3 and 6.1 percentage points, respectively. Four other players saw their vote drop off in double-digit percentage points (Lee Smith, 17.9 percent; Alan Trammell, 12.8 percent; Larry Walker, 11.4 percent; and Edgar Martinez, 10.7 percent). The same cannot be said for 2017. The only other player whose vote total declined this year was Billy Wagner, at a statistically insignificant 0.3 percentage points.
It is worth noting that while Schilling’s vote fell 7.3 percent this year, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, whose storied careers were tainted by legal problems that arose from alleged PED use, gained 8.9 percent and 9.5 percent and increased their totals to 54.1 percent and 53.8 percent, respectively. It is also worth noting that Schilling, Clemens, and Bonds have five years left on the Hall of Fame ballot. When they reached the ballot in 2013, who would have thought that Clemens and Bonds would have a greater chance of enshrinement than Schilling?
Aside from Bonds and Clemens, six other players had vote increases of 5% or more Three of those players (including 2017 Hall of Fame inductees Jeff Bagwell and Tim Raines) had double digit vote increases. If other players had experienced a significant drop on this year's ballot then Frankovich might have a valid point.
Frankovich also argues that Schilling is a borderline Hall of Famer. He is on firmer ground here. The problem is that several prominent baseball writers have publicly stated that Schilling's politics, not his accomplishments on the diamond is their reason for excluding him from Cooperstown such as Dan Shaughnessy and Jon Heyman with many others following their lead. With President Trump not likely going away anytime soon there is a good chance that politics will trump pitching where it concerns Schilling's Hall of Fame prospects. This would be most unfortunate.
NRO editor Nicholas Frankovich has weighed in on The Corner and takes issue with my argument:
A few problems dog that theory. One is that Schilling did better in the 2017 voting than he’s done on average in his five years of eligibility. Remember, the procedure is that every baseball writer with a vote selects up to ten names from a list. Most writers select fewer than ten. In 2017, the percentage who included Schilling among their picks was lower than in 2016 but higher than in 2013, 2014, and 2015, his only other years on the ballot. (Frankovich produces a graph).
You could come up with a hundred theories for why the dips (2014, 2017) and the spike (2015–16) occurred when they did. Aaron correlates the second dip, but not the earlier dip or the spike, with Schilling’s political activism. I don’t see it.
Frankovich swings and misses. I devoted two paragraphs to correlating the first dip:
Yet when the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) unveiled the results of the 2017 Hall of Fame balloting on January 17, Schilling was selected on only 45 percent of the ballots. (Each voter may select a maximum of ten players.) That was well short of the 75 percent required for induction. What was eye-popping was that his share of the vote in 2016 was 52.3 percent. Of course, this isn’t the first time Schilling’s vote total has dropped. In 2014, his second year of eligibility, his vote declined from 38.8 to 29.2 percent. That was not attributable to politics. Rather, the juggernaut of Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas, on the ballot for the first time, depressed the vote of other players. Jeff Bagwell and Tim Raines, who will be inducted in July, along with Ivan Rodriguez, saw their vote drop 5.3 and 6.1 percentage points, respectively. Four other players saw their vote drop off in double-digit percentage points (Lee Smith, 17.9 percent; Alan Trammell, 12.8 percent; Larry Walker, 11.4 percent; and Edgar Martinez, 10.7 percent). The same cannot be said for 2017. The only other player whose vote total declined this year was Billy Wagner, at a statistically insignificant 0.3 percentage points.
It is worth noting that while Schilling’s vote fell 7.3 percent this year, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, whose storied careers were tainted by legal problems that arose from alleged PED use, gained 8.9 percent and 9.5 percent and increased their totals to 54.1 percent and 53.8 percent, respectively. It is also worth noting that Schilling, Clemens, and Bonds have five years left on the Hall of Fame ballot. When they reached the ballot in 2013, who would have thought that Clemens and Bonds would have a greater chance of enshrinement than Schilling?
Aside from Bonds and Clemens, six other players had vote increases of 5% or more Three of those players (including 2017 Hall of Fame inductees Jeff Bagwell and Tim Raines) had double digit vote increases. If other players had experienced a significant drop on this year's ballot then Frankovich might have a valid point.
Frankovich also argues that Schilling is a borderline Hall of Famer. He is on firmer ground here. The problem is that several prominent baseball writers have publicly stated that Schilling's politics, not his accomplishments on the diamond is their reason for excluding him from Cooperstown such as Dan Shaughnessy and Jon Heyman with many others following their lead. With President Trump not likely going away anytime soon there is a good chance that politics will trump pitching where it concerns Schilling's Hall of Fame prospects. This would be most unfortunate.
Friday, February 3, 2017
Why Is Trump Going After Israel on Settlements?
After wooing Israel, the Trump Administration has begun to turn the screws. The White House admonished Israel for its recent moves announcing the expansion of 5,500 settlements calling it "unilateral" and "undermining" peace efforts towards a two-state solution. One might have thought President Obama had never moved out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
It seems that Trump, ever the deal maker, wants to make what he once called "the ultimate deal" and bring Israel and the Palestinians to the table. But Trump has fallen into the trap of making this about settlements. If I've said it once, I've said a thousand times. If the settlements ended tomorrow, the Palestinians would not be mollified. They think Israel is one big settlement.
If Trump does bring Israel and the Palestinians to the table it will be more of the same. Israel will be expected to makes concessions and more concessions. The Palestinians ignore the terms of the deal and the White House turns a blind eye to preserve the deal for the sake of preserving the deal and President Trump's legacy.
Honestly, I'm not surprised Trump has taken this turn. He has criticized Israel for not being willing to make peace despite making numerous offers and has also suggested the U.S. must be neutral where it concerns Israel and the Palestinians. So I've never taken his overtures to Israel seriously. Any President truly committed to the future of a Jewish state would not exclude Jews from a statement commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day.
It seems that Trump, ever the deal maker, wants to make what he once called "the ultimate deal" and bring Israel and the Palestinians to the table. But Trump has fallen into the trap of making this about settlements. If I've said it once, I've said a thousand times. If the settlements ended tomorrow, the Palestinians would not be mollified. They think Israel is one big settlement.
If Trump does bring Israel and the Palestinians to the table it will be more of the same. Israel will be expected to makes concessions and more concessions. The Palestinians ignore the terms of the deal and the White House turns a blind eye to preserve the deal for the sake of preserving the deal and President Trump's legacy.
Honestly, I'm not surprised Trump has taken this turn. He has criticized Israel for not being willing to make peace despite making numerous offers and has also suggested the U.S. must be neutral where it concerns Israel and the Palestinians. So I've never taken his overtures to Israel seriously. Any President truly committed to the future of a Jewish state would not exclude Jews from a statement commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Thoughts on Neil Gorsuch's High School Extracurricular Activities
As someone who had swastikas drawn on my locker and elsewhere while attending high school I might not be particularly amused by a classmate who starts a Fascism Forever Club.
With that said, there is no evidence to suggest that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch did anything so malevolent. It is more likely the term fascist was deployed in a tongue and cheek manner.
The fact that attention is being paid to Gorsuch's activities three decades ago is an indication that there is nothing worthy of objection in his judicial career. Whatever juvenile inclinations Gorsuch may have had at Georgetown Prep did not remain with him into adulthood. The same, however, cannot be said of the man who appointed him to the Supreme Court.
With that said, there is no evidence to suggest that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch did anything so malevolent. It is more likely the term fascist was deployed in a tongue and cheek manner.
The fact that attention is being paid to Gorsuch's activities three decades ago is an indication that there is nothing worthy of objection in his judicial career. Whatever juvenile inclinations Gorsuch may have had at Georgetown Prep did not remain with him into adulthood. The same, however, cannot be said of the man who appointed him to the Supreme Court.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
John Wetton, R.I.P.
Singer-songwriter and bass player John Wetton passed away on January 31st of colon cancer. He was 67.
Wetton was a prog rock icon best known for his tenure with King Crimson in the 1970's and Asia in the early 1980's. He also had a brief tenure in Uriah Heep and was frequent collaborator of Bryan Ferry and Roxy Music as well as his former Asia bandmate Geoff Downes.
Asia consisted of Wetton, Downes and Steve Howe of Yes and Carl Palmer of Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Wetton and Downes would co-write their biggest hit "Heat of The Moment" (with Wetton on lead vocal) which was one of the most popular songs of 1982. R.I.P.
Wetton was a prog rock icon best known for his tenure with King Crimson in the 1970's and Asia in the early 1980's. He also had a brief tenure in Uriah Heep and was frequent collaborator of Bryan Ferry and Roxy Music as well as his former Asia bandmate Geoff Downes.
Asia consisted of Wetton, Downes and Steve Howe of Yes and Carl Palmer of Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Wetton and Downes would co-write their biggest hit "Heat of The Moment" (with Wetton on lead vocal) which was one of the most popular songs of 1982. R.I.P.
Feeling Down Under or With an Ally Like Trump Who Needs Enemies?
Does it surprise anyone that President Trump would berate and hang up on an ally like Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull?
Of course it doesn't.
It's not like Trump has an abundance of friends. You would think Trump would want to cultivate an Anglo ally as he has with British Prime Minister Theresa May. Like May, Turnbull is a conservative (unless Trump let the Liberal Party banner fool him).
Now I'm well aware what a prick President Obama was to Benjamin Netanyahu. But with an ally like Trump who needs enemies? His ego is so monumental that even the mildest of disagreements become international crises and to quote The Carpenters we've only just begun. If this is how things are not even two weeks in I shudder to imagine what things will be like in two months.
Of course it doesn't.
It's not like Trump has an abundance of friends. You would think Trump would want to cultivate an Anglo ally as he has with British Prime Minister Theresa May. Like May, Turnbull is a conservative (unless Trump let the Liberal Party banner fool him).
Now I'm well aware what a prick President Obama was to Benjamin Netanyahu. But with an ally like Trump who needs enemies? His ego is so monumental that even the mildest of disagreements become international crises and to quote The Carpenters we've only just begun. If this is how things are not even two weeks in I shudder to imagine what things will be like in two months.
Any Republican President Would Have Appointed Neil Gorsuch
I have no objections to President Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Conservatives who are heaping praise upon Trump for decision should ask themselves this question. Would any of the other 16 Republican presidential hopefuls have appointed Gorsuch or someone with equivalent credentials? And if conservatives are honest with themselves the answer would be a resounding yes. So I don't think what Trump did here was particularly exceptional.
Of course, we have no idea how Gorsuch will vote or rule. The other night I saw the The Dick Cavett Show. It was recorded in June 1969 and Cavett was interviewing James J. Kilpatrick. While Kilpatrick was "enraptured" with President Nixon's appointment of Warren Burger to the Court he did caution there was no guarantee how he would rule. No doubt Kilpatrick was disappointed with Burger when he voted with the majority on Roe v. Wade a mere 3½ years later. Kilpatrick further noted that he was disappointed with President Eisenhower's appointments of Earl Warren and William Brennan, Jr. Indeed, Kilpatrick lambasted Brennan for writing an article for Playboy Magazine. If Kilpatrick was offended with Brennan for writing for Playboy, I wonder how he would have felt about Trump for posing on the cover of Playboy. But I digress.
Sure conservatives like Gorsuch now. But who can say that Gorsuch won't uphold a controversial law signed into law by a Democratic President? Did anyone cast John Roberts in that role when President Bush appointed him to the Court in 2005? Hardly.
Simply put conservatives might celebrate Gorsuch. But one day they could damn him and, dare I say, damn Trump for appointing him.
Conservatives who are heaping praise upon Trump for decision should ask themselves this question. Would any of the other 16 Republican presidential hopefuls have appointed Gorsuch or someone with equivalent credentials? And if conservatives are honest with themselves the answer would be a resounding yes. So I don't think what Trump did here was particularly exceptional.
Of course, we have no idea how Gorsuch will vote or rule. The other night I saw the The Dick Cavett Show. It was recorded in June 1969 and Cavett was interviewing James J. Kilpatrick. While Kilpatrick was "enraptured" with President Nixon's appointment of Warren Burger to the Court he did caution there was no guarantee how he would rule. No doubt Kilpatrick was disappointed with Burger when he voted with the majority on Roe v. Wade a mere 3½ years later. Kilpatrick further noted that he was disappointed with President Eisenhower's appointments of Earl Warren and William Brennan, Jr. Indeed, Kilpatrick lambasted Brennan for writing an article for Playboy Magazine. If Kilpatrick was offended with Brennan for writing for Playboy, I wonder how he would have felt about Trump for posing on the cover of Playboy. But I digress.
Sure conservatives like Gorsuch now. But who can say that Gorsuch won't uphold a controversial law signed into law by a Democratic President? Did anyone cast John Roberts in that role when President Bush appointed him to the Court in 2005? Hardly.
Simply put conservatives might celebrate Gorsuch. But one day they could damn him and, dare I say, damn Trump for appointing him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)