PseudoSABR

That's not a fact (at best it's hindsight speculation). And likely was not the diagnosis/prognosis at the time.

The lingering issue on gerrymandering is if it's declared unconstitutional what is a manageable standard that it should appropriately adhere to. Kennedy has already hinted at his displeasure, but he'll need a workable standard to sign on to. I hope he's been trying to develop one on his own/with his staff.

It's cool that you like them, but I don't think they have anywhere near the artistic and cultural cache as Radiohead, who is also from the U.K. As one example, Rolling Stone ranking the best 90's albums has Radiohead's Ok Computer as the 3rd, and the Bends as 21. Oasis has Morning Glory as 34, and Definitely Maybe as 78. Radiohead also ranks as their 73rd greatest artist of all time. Nirvana was the only other 90s rock band I spotted on the list at 30. I know Rollingstone is just one source, but if you can find some legitimate or articulate rag/blog that agrees with your assessment, I'm amenable. (Part of my incredulity is when I was growing up, Oasis was synonymous with a token pop rock band, that signaled bad taste; of course, that's just immature talk, but it colored my perception. And I honestly didn't know others really dug their stuff.)

Sarcasm I hope.

Because obviously there was some hope he could play, that he tried, and failed to play well, doesn't make it the wrong decision. Having surgery at the time would have wasted the rest of the season. There's nothing that chides me more than casual fans second-guessing medical evaluations. It happens with every injury that puts a player out for any extended time. Ugh.

That would be very, very wrong. Most influential band of my lifetime. Popularity can often mean oversaturation, but it doesn't always equate to bad music. Radiohead continued to evolve never repeating the kind of music that made them successful initially. From Creep/Pablo Honey (arguably their most 'pop' album) to the Bends to OK Computer to Kid A/Amenisiac, they changed their approach to what made them successful. Arguably, their more recent work lacks the same imagination and splendor, but it's still all good and inventive (King of Limbs, Hail to the Theif, etc.)

Just watched that highlight where the camera can't get Gardner into frame on that Joe Mauer liner to left field with two on. Did he really catch it? What was the cameraman's name? The producer's? The ghost of Phil Cuzzi haunts us.

Very proud of our club. It was too bad not see Sano and Buxton finish this game, but makes me imagine the good things to come.

We need to frame the issue better, it's not really about gun control, it's about arsenal control, it's about mass murder control. Really no one has issue with you having a gun or three in your home, it's the 50 guns. It's the automatic weapons, unlimited ammo, the add-on modifications. There's a reason I shouldn't own anthrax, and it's not because it isn't included in the second amendment.

It's funny, because I wonder what the hot take on starting Severino is... It's easy to second guess decisions, when the team lacks the assets to make an impervious decision. There's plenty of blame to spread around, but I don't fault Molitor for starting Santana.

So you would have started Berrios?

w00t! Hate that I have to work right up to the game!!

Was this guy a criminal before this particular crime? It's not known-criminals that commit mass-shootings. In any case, no one wants to take all your guns away. That said, there's no defensible reason for semiautomatic weapons to be sold to the public at large. Many semi-automatics, legally bought, can be modified to be automatic... (And yes, if faced with both the crazy white guy living next to me having an automatic weapon and the gangbanger, I'd rather just the gangbanger have the automatic weapon, as there's a lot more crazy white guys than criminals).

How were you able to see Episode 4? I only have access to three.

I thought the third episode of Discovery was very good. Pacing much better, self-contained episode, interesting cast.

I don't know how you protest without disrespecting someone, some of the time. And if you manage to avoid disrespecting someone, I'd wonder what kind of attention you're garnering, if any. I'm not sure how the respectful method puts advocates in a better spot. (And, just to clarify, I certainly didn't peg you as a Trump supporter).

To some extent it has, and it's not the horrible result you suggest it is---the act of protesting and the reaction against is part-and-parcel with systemic oppression minorities face. It's why Trump's word motivated so many to finally kneel. (Trumps comments yesterday that the owners were 'scared' of the players, I think, underscores the common racial comment here, that too many sweep away.) I do think if there were a bunch of white baseball players kneeling for cancer, we'd see a very different reaction. I think you're (earned) attachment to the flag as a symbol of military pride obscures your ability to see how ridiculous is to demand these players be fired for a peaceful, and even solemn, protest. Does it matter that we're not talking about cops killing black men, and were talking about how owners might fire a bunch a black for airing their grievances? I don't think those conversations are as world's apart as you suggest they are.

The protest and the message are inextricably linked. Refusing to 'shut up' (and stand up) when dominant culture tells you to is in the same vein of oppression that lead to the protest in the first place. It is not the protester that seeks to draw attention to the method, it is the person who refuses to heed the meaningfulness of that message or to allow that message to gain the necessary attention it deserves. The whole association of the military = patriotism = flag is rotten at the core. It's completely reasonable for people to not take pride in their country if they believe that country does not pursue their best interests. What's unreasonable is to expect people to honor that country in spite of how they actually feel to avoid some perceived offense.

How are you making that determination? There's this poll that suggests: "According to a survey conducted this week by the Seton Hall Sports Poll, 84% of Americans surveyed support NFL players’ right to protest—even if they vary on how they feel the protest should be carried out." This sounds like the kind of logic that promotes candidates like Hillary Clinton, who really didn't take a stance on much of anything for fear of precisely what you imply. We all know how that went. At some point, you have to stop trying to 'win' elections, or playing to some demographic (rural whites) that pull values and principals towards this bland non-offensive platform. I think you're selling sincerity and passion very, very short.

Congrats to the Twins! Cheers to all the fans who persevered through those losing seasons and still found ways to contribute to our little community! We're coming for you, you Yankee scum!

I'll share a facebook in response to a veteran condemning the NFL: American soldiers--any soldier in a democracy--fight for rights, not symbols. Soldiers that fight for symbols which must be obeyed by everyone or else face consequences are part of totalitarian regimes. Our world's history is littered with such regimes, and our country and soldiers have fought to defeat them (namely Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia). That our president uses the sacrifices of our soldiers to advance his totalitarian (and racist) rhetoric is an insult to WWII vets and cold war vets. These protesters realize that their actions will be construed as condemning the military, even though they wish the military no ill-will--so why do they do it? Because it is protest, that seeks to get your attention and your consideration of their cause--if they protested in some dark alley, offending no one, inconveniencing no one, no one would pay attention. And yet, so many do not listen, do not stop and ask "what would motivate these people to do something that offends me?" A country is made of up people, who have rights, not of symbols which must be cowered under. And no, kneeling at the national anthem is nothing like spitting on a grave. Kneeling is passive, and is not directed at any individual. The military is a proud part of our country, but they do not have exclusive rights to the flag. And patriotism comes and many forms and many colors, anyone who says otherwise is no American, and needs to read the Constitution and study History. Thanks for your service, but I think you're missing the point of their protest, and why they protest the anthem, and don't make it easy and convenient for you to ignore. It may not seem like it, but all the best.

What bullpen?

I saw the first two episodes of Discovery, and enjoyed them. I went in with zero expectations, and I knew it wasn't going to be like TNG--I'm not sure that an episodic Startrek can succeed today (though Orville might prove me wrong). As I understand, beginning in the third episode, the series becomes more of typical Startrek show, following a single ship, with a single crew, for the span of the season. Many reviewers have seen the third episode and say it's more consistent, less actiony, less exposition, and more depth. I went ahead and subscribed, because there's not alot of shows I'm really enjoying. 5.99 for two or three months is less than going out for dinner. I'll cancel after the show ends. Those skeptical of the subscription should wait until the season is over, and then get the CBS All Access one week trial and binge watch it (assuming it's still offered, if not, watch the season for 5.99). As an aside, another show I've started to sink my teeth into is Netflix' Ozarks, which has a pretty stellar cast, and something like Breaking Bad in hickville.

Bruce Maxwell of the A's took the knee this evening. It sounds like tomorrow could be something. https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/911778824555302912