Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

PseudoSABR

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,120

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by PseudoSABR

  1. PseudoSABR
    I don't think anyone is arguing that there's a lot of inhumanity found in Islamic practice, but again, I think, that's a separate (though related) issue from the violence perpetuated by jihadists, terrorists, or whatever the preferred nomenclature is. How does what Saudi Arabia's practice of Islam affect ISIS or much less the Orlando and San Bernadino shooters? Sure, the long view would be that as the Muslim world would reject their oppressive beliefs, Islam wouldn't endorse, or allow for, such terrorist acts. But the only way terrorism would actually be curtailed even in the long view is if the basis of terrorism is really rooted in Islam itself and not individual Muslims experience of the world vis-a-vis the acts (both present and past) of Western culture. Getting rid of Sharia law doesn't eliminate Israel, it doesn't eliminate the economic depravity of much the middle east, it probably doesn't necessarily change individual Muslim's attitude's about the West either. I think such people culturally and politically would still have plenty of motivation to decry Western imperialism and the global economy of which they've largely been left out. Again, I think everyone would love it if Saudi Arabia was held accountable for its human rights violations; I'd say the same thing about China, too. But I just don't believe that will have one iota of affect on ISIS and jihadism. As soon as the Saudi's or others reject Sharia law, ISIS will dissociate with them and call those countries infidels. It just won't work.
  2. PseudoSABR
    Oh look at that, military coup in Turkey.
  3. PseudoSABR
    I think you're being naive in assuming that the basis for such acts is religion; religion might allow for such acts or even approve of them, but the basis for those acts is sourced in some other kind of hate. Dropping Sharia law won't change a damn thing. ISIS is emerging out of what had been, relatively, secular Islamic societies, run by dictators. I don't think either Syria or Iraq adopted Sharia law. The members of ISIS aren't reacting to their childhood training; they are reacting to their rubbled cities, the lack of an economy, etc. etc. This assumption that a religion is some a stable source of policy that could even be changed if it desired to so is ludicrous. As twinsnorthfan pointed out there is no Islamic pope, and you think ISIS would change anything if Saudi Arabia suddenly does away with their religious police. Yes, we all want more equality and freedoms in the Muslim world, but that's just a different fight than one we have with terrorists. (And while we're at it, I want the Republican Party to change, and I want Chevron and Monsanto to change...etc.)
  4. PseudoSABR
    Now American Racism is akin to religion? Give me a break. Islam doesn't have legal structure that would fix systemic violence, like the police departments have. If all the Islam leaders (beyond ISIS or whatever) mandate terrorism stop, it would not stop. The cause is deeper than the policies of a religion. it's economic, cultural and political. You just keep ignoring these elements. You really think Israel has nothing to do with the rise of jihadism? Or the Iraq War? Give me a break.
  5. PseudoSABR
    Look, I can acknowledge the social problematic realities created by a hosts of religions without suggesting the solution is to get Christians to change their religion or whatever it is you're proposing about Islam. Stop trying to state what is clearly your opinion as an absolute fact; one I and other reasonable people disagree with it. Ignoring Israel, post WW-II carve up, propping up dictators, Iraq War(s), toppling regimes, the oil economy, etc. etc. is just being obtuse. Again, IMHO, Islam is the a very effective vehicle of hate and violence, however, it is not the cause of that hate and violence.
  6. PseudoSABR
    Well, that's my issue, I don't think we are outlining it correctly. Again, I think the reality of terrorism emerging from Islamic culture has less to do with Islamic culture itself than it has to do with Western imperialism of the middle east. Islam may provide the basis for organizing and mechanizing hate and violence, but the current violence is not perpetuated on the basis of infidel, or cultural supremacy, its a direct reaction to Western meddling, wars, and occupation over nearly a century. For my part, suggesting that Islam should go fix itself, or that we somehow should fix or change Islam is a total nonstarter of a solution; I'd rather address what our culture has done to create the current violent climate.
  7. PseudoSABR
    The fact that many, many Muslims believe some really antiquated and oppressive things does not explain the recent phenomenon of radicalized Islam attacking Western societies. Sure, the oppressive dogma allows such hate and fanaticism to take root, but no more than Christianity allowed for the KKK to shroud itself in faux-religion. For my part, I think Western, esp. US and Israel, policy towards the Middle East in general since WWII provides a lot more meaningful basis for the emergence of Islamic Terrorism than the Quran or Sharia law. It took modernization, democracy, and the promotion of social welfare for Christian societies to shed many of their antiquated and oppressive regimes. I think focusing on what is wrong with Islamic belief is a mistake, rather focus on what is wrong with Muslim's people's quality of life, and I think we'll get better sense of the roots and motivations of Islamic terrorism/ISIS. In general you can't kill an idea, a belief, or even a religion; but you might be able to help foster a world were people are less likely to put stock in such ideas/beliefs/religions.
  8. PseudoSABR
    Thanks. I mean that makes sense but for some reason the club option didn't occur to me. So much the better, as the option is an added attribute to Suzuki's trade value. (Gosh, if the Twins don't deal him, they're gonna exercise that option aren't they...)
  9. PseudoSABR
    The unfortunate/fortunate thing about the Twins pieces that have some value--Nunez, Santana, Dozier, even Plouffe--is that they are under team control for at least another year. That gives the Twins leverage in not having to make a deal, but it also allows the foolhardy myth of being competitive next year to influence what the Twins may do. I fear that a team will have to overpay in terms of prospect-value to force the Twins hand. So my prediction is nothing much happens. Edit: I forgot about Suzuki who should definitely be on the block, and given his batting line this year, his vesting option might be desirable to an acquiring club--to give that vesting option value (i.e. so the acquiring team can give Suzuki enough PAs to trigger) the Twins should look to deal him sooner rather than later. The lack of credible major league catching, I also fear, may stay the Twins hand.
  10. PseudoSABR
    Is there a regular mounted police? What makes them Royal? Calling back to antiquity?
  11. PseudoSABR
    I was with the article until I came to this paragraph: If there is police discrimination at work, it would operate on both the initial encounter and the actual killing. To suggest that police discrimination isn't a big factor in the actual killing seems off-the-mark. The same discrimination that may lead to an unjustified arrest (or encounter) may also lead to the unreasonable use of lethal force. The author's explanation about why police encounter and arrest more African-Americans isn't data based, but rather arm-chair sociology, that seems bent on finding factors beyond race. Maybe I'm picking nits or I'm failing to grasp the author's point about the significance of the data, but the analysis seems titled towards the more compelling conclusion (that race isn't a factor).
  12. PseudoSABR
    Part of being really bad is that you have the opportunity to addition the best of minor league signees
  13. PseudoSABR
    Ugh. Throwing in a prospect would work against the Twins' desired ends for a number of reasons: First, to a pennant-chasing team, that extra lower-grade prospect is virtually meaningless. At best, it would serve to outweigh extra added cost of the contract (which *sigh* Twins). Second, if the trading-team had a better prospect it was willing to part with, it would seek a better pitcher than we have to offer. Santana is a good asset, despite the word around hear, but he's not the game changer you give up a piece of the future (and that's what we seek in return, right?). Third, these are prospects, we shouldn't give up our 'prospect' in addition to a valued tradeable asset, to obtain another 'prospect' whom is more highly regarded. That's the strategy Delmon Young trades are made of.
  14. PseudoSABR
    I apologize, that paragraph needed some unsaid conceits; I was speaking ideally, which can be righteous, so ugh. Yet, it's madness that it is a negotiation at all, given the supposed 'balance' of the relationship, one group being the other's employees. The charge--again--seems to be YOU SHOULD NEGOTIATE TO GET THE OTHERSIDE TO THE TABLE. I cannot concede that point. Nonetheless, negotiation, of course, inevitably, is required--not with those who represent the exclusive interest of police, as an end into itself (as the unions might), but with those good actors who seek to do the possible. And I mean good actors in the sense of willing to address the problem, that's really I want at this point. (And not just on this issue. Non-negotiation, of course, is a conscious tactic, no?)
  15. PseudoSABR
    That last paragraph is straw man. I'm totally willing to listen and understand other people's perspective on any issue. And really, I think you're putting my character out of context, there's plenty of incidents in the election thread, where I politely engage and seek to understand those who think differently. But when I post a link in this thread, I don't need to give "both sides equal due." I think I do just fine of leaving whatever link I post unadulterated by thieving liberalism (boo). There's bad actors on "both" sides, yes, yes, yes. But I'll continue to emphasize it, only one of those are paid by the people's taxes, have a duty to protect us from harm, and safeguard our constitutional rights. This isn't a negotiation. The police are our employees. The whole notion that we should grant something in return fails to acknowledge the absurdity of the balance of the two groups I spoke of in the previous post. All that said, whether it's Black Lives Matters or some dumbass internet poster, the fact that someone speaks without violence demonstrates one's willingness to engage. The whole 'treatment of both sides' issue is one that just delays assessing/fixing the problem.
  16. PseudoSABR
    I just want to echo this. I hate grandstanding. I hate righteousness. I generally think protests are unhelpful; they pursue the wrong direction, when they should be assembling to hold a community forum as an alternative to what they are protesting. And, any impediment of actions by those not directly involved in that which is being protested is totally unhelpful to the cause. Don't block traffic, you're just being a dick.
  17. PseudoSABR
    Balance might be overvalued thanks to the Fox News channel. I try to be fair. I try not to editorialize when presenting articles and others' ideas. I tend to edit/fix my posts when I notice errors, oversights, biases, or when they're brought to my attention. And yet, still, I feel the need to hammer in one direction. That's not because of ideology, that's because of results, a result of that unwillingness to come to the table. Here, one group is a race who is composed of people who did not choose to be part of that group, on the other side, are public officers who are paid from tax revenue, which inevitably includes the former group. An error in balance is to suggest that each group has equal complaint or as much work to do to change the happenstance. It seems to me, by duty of public office, just one group is obligated to supply the most give....yet, we should some how leave blameless those who abdicate their second-job's duty because of some perceived offense? Give me a break. Why is the phenomenon of police brutality emerging in the twenty-teens? Because the power of the police is embedded, it's defenders from blame were infinite and powerful, and the law of land was written and construed to favor that authority in nearly all circumstances, with near immunity. Forgive me, and others, if we tend to be a bit unbalanced in our caricature of the phenomenon. Balance, so-called, has been part of the problem.
  18. PseudoSABR
    Right, Levi. I'm not going to pretend not to believe what I believe, or be from where I'm from, but I'm so there at the table, willing to listen, willing to be wrong, but in the face of defiance and obstinacy, it's very difficult to keep one's composure, which, in turn, makes it difficult to keep coming back to the table. I don't say this to chide anyone, but rather to implore a general of willingness to not ask 'why should I help out, why should I give up what I believe' but rather ask, 'what can I do to help fix the issue?', whether if it's their "place" to do so or not. People worry too much about blame, and who's really at fall, and who should carry the burden of making things better--when in reality, the problem is systemic, has no source, exists only in a latent state, shaping policy, discretion, and fear, never emerging as that hateful beast we call racism. It does not take racists to build a society where cops kill black people, it only takes do-nothings, and not-my-problems.
  19. PseudoSABR
    Link More from here.
  20. PseudoSABR
    At some point you have to assess how much you want the "police pursuing armed criminals." Does Castile's look-like-ness constitute probable cause for a stop, probably not, hence the need for the "broken tail-light" rationale. At what point must person NOT LOOK LIKE the suspect for the police behavior to be unreasonable? If we value the lives of innocents more than we value seeking to punish those who MAY have committed crimes; well, this officers behavior is inappropriate. On Driver's licenses, etc. The second point is that Castille is NOT the perp and looking at his Driver's License may have provided enough information to rule him out as a suspect. Again we are looking for disengagement. Not Justification for the cop's actions. (The problem is not that the individual cop messed up but that the rules of engagement allow for latent racism and assumptions to guide such engagement). -- In any case, no matter how much Castille may have looked like this suspect; the officer's actions are unreasonable (whether they are predicated on bad procedure or individual negligence) and the result is unacceptable. The notion that somehow had Castille really been the suspect his death would have been more justified ENTIRELY MISSES the problem of how police over-use force.
  21. PseudoSABR
    Good stuff here on Black lives matter wearing law professor https://imgur.com/a/YkDVQ
  22. PseudoSABR
    Indeed. If they ran the plates and found that it was registered to a person who fit the description of the person actual in control of the car; well, they've found another way to eliminate unnecessary engagement. Either 1) the person is actually the suspect and he registered the car under his name, and his identity can be corroborated through driver's license. (And more caution can be taken in engagement) 2) the person is not actually the suspect and he registered the car under his name, and his driver's license can be compared to the suspect's, and lack of identification can be confirmed. (And no engagement is necessary.) 3) the person in question is not the person the vehicle is registered to, and more caution can be taken to corroborate identity. Checking the plates and comparing suspect description to driver's license may not actually CATCH the bad guy, but it would corroborate an INNOCENT person. What really bothers me, is that you too, are starting with the presumption that person-is-the-suspect, rather than that the person-is-innocent. We should value protecting the rights and LIVES of innocent people, more than we should value attempts to catch supposed criminally-liable persons. The goal should be: how do we disencourage unnecessary engagement, rather than bending-over-backwards justifying that engagement. Even if the person was actually a suspect of the crime, he too, has not yet been found guilty, and deserves the presumption of innocence (i.e. not a cop death sentence).
  23. PseudoSABR
    Well that's why you got to pull him over so you can check his nose? Heck we should have police check points where black people have to step out and get their nose measured, so we can really be sure to get this one suspect of this one crime days ago. (The crazy truth is that there's enough suspected persons out there that look like each and everyone else to provide justification for police engagement with each and everyone of us.)
  24. PseudoSABR
    This is all good stuff. But continuing on the whole no sense of urgency thing...if they have plate numbers, they can track the persons registration, and thereby his driver license and corroborate identification issues without the need of the officer ever interacting with the person. (My sense is again, that the 'suspect' stuff, along with the broken taillight are just 'excuses' and not 'reasons' for the pull over. The cop doesn't so much believe he's found a suspect as he is looking for a reason to meddle and hopefully detect some ticktable/arrestable offenses in the course of the meddling.)
  25. PseudoSABR
    So you're okay with pulling over everyone who matches however vague a suspect's description is? The value of catching robbers days after the crime does not supersede the fourth amendment rights that establish the need for probable cause/reasonable suspicion before pulling someone over. If wideset nose, or black guy, is enough to establish such probable cause, well that's a problem for me. The rights of look-a-likes should not be abrogated in the name of tracking criminals down. (I wonder what the statistics suggest about random pull-overs based on suspect descriptions days after a crime. My bet is such a strategy produces pretty low results.) Call me cynical, but I tend to believe cops look for 'excuses' to pull a person over, hoping to discover indications of other crimes than what initially led the cop to pull someone over. And such behavior is in part what predicates unnecessary police engagement.
×
×
  • Create New...