TheLeviathan

Another victim of the decision to not trade Plouffe. This is just terrible asset management. Terrible.

It amazes me anyone is defending Ryan. Look, you can still feel he's the right guy and even base it on a time frame where he was successful. But we are here, where we are at, because of him. This "total system failure" is on him. And not in the rhetorical, BS way he means it - it is on him. He deserves the ranking he has.

This team punted on defense the second it decided to put Sano in RF. The team has basically foregone defense since Ryan's return as well. I hope this team doesn't give up on Arcia, I'd like to see him in the lineup every day the rest of the season. Sink or swim time.

Maybe this is totally crazy, but hearing his name bounce around made me think: what about Okafor? Philly wants to move him, would he be someone to look at? I would assume he'd play the 5 with Towns at the 4 and then it allows us to look for a versatile SF/wing player.

I think this is worth listening to. I don't agree with all of the first half of his rant (there are parts I do, but by and large he's taking it farther than I think is warranted), but the second half is, in my opinion, a seminal moment. The leading right-wing talker in the country just crossed the line into gun restrictions. It can't be understated how important this is. Combine that with the presumptive Republican nominee from pushing back on the NRA and we are in interesting times. Whether the NRA pursues sanity or not is another question, but the tide is turning.

For me, I'd rather just avoid tweeners. Dunn has the size and defensive abilities to handle the point. Heild has the shooting and the size to play on the wing. I'd choose between those. But damned if I don't like the idea of Dunn. Even moreso if the reports are accurate that Thibs loves him.

I think you're right that there was hypocrisy in that case. I don't approve of that either. The flip is that, like it or not, most acts of terror in our current time are inspired by radical Islam. I don't understand why we can't acknowledge that and work to help that religion heal it's ugly side.

When major hosts on Fox News are calling for changes, the momentum is at least swinging the right way.

It's not just height, his wingspan is also significantly smaller than Hield's also.

That works both ways. I agree, he should have been called a terrorist. This story was called "domestic terrorism" even before we knew the identity of the shooter or any connections to his religion or past explorations of ISIS. Now that we know those things, why wouldn't we correctly identify him as a terrorist? And why are so many (some of whom rushed to point out this same contradiction) so hell bent on not identifying him as such? Be consistent. That's a huge part of why this can be so annoying. But I refer you to Bark's article - we owe it to thousands of muslims who fight this kind of man for tolerance every day to stand up and call out the problem for what it is. Not hide behind BS accusations of racism to make us feel more tolerant and enlightened.

One would've hoped a classroom full of dead six year olds would've accomplished that. But it was literally chalked up as the "price of freedom". That will never make sense to me.

Why can't we just start with a good pruning? Look, if you want to be paranoid about how things will play out, I can at least work with the emotion of that if you come to the table for some reasonable concessions. Just come to the table and talk about it. Would I ideally like a mass turn-in of firearms? Yes. Would I be very content with a ban on all high caliber weapons and large clips? Yes. Have your rifles and even your hand guns, but why do you need anything that will mow down 50 people in a crowded room in seconds? I'm asking that seriously - why do you need that? Why is a rack of rifles and a selection of hand guns not enough? It should be more than enough, especially if you can also access a wider selection at a gun range. So I'm genuinely curious - why?

Is there any concern about the fact that Murray isn't ideal size for an off-guard and that he is mostly auditioning as a PG? To me, if that's the case, I'd rather have Dunn. At least Heild has some of the measurables you'd like for an off-guard.

I'd like to see Polanco playing, but that necessitates probably two of the following three guys to be off the roster: Dozier, Plouffe, Park. (Assuming Nunez keeps playing. And he should) But post-ASG I don't see why this team isn't investing every AB it has into guys part of the future.

The last 13 games have been nice, but it's 13 games. The "bad Dozier" has been that way for almost an entire season. Gotta let this one breath. But Polanco needs to start playing, so someone needs to move and the sooner the better.

This. He's there to be working on a deficiency, his batting average isn't what I'm worried about. Do what's right for him and work with him on taking walks and improving his plate discipline. Those stats will bear out over a larger sample.

Loves ability to stretch the floor, but isn't his defense awful enough to avoid him?

No one wants to chop it. A healthy pruning seems in order. Mental health could use a pouring of money, but not for this reason. This issue has very little to do with what government considers "mental health". Most of these shooters have no track record of mental health or even violence until the mass murders. So while this would be great for those truly in need of mental health, those same people are really of little risk to the populace in general. They've become a convenient talking point/scapegoat for the left and the right who are seeking to explain things. But it isn't accurate.

This guy being a Muslim terrorist does not equal all Muslims are terrorists. That's illogical and asinine to equate. It's apparent the Dalai Lama also lacks the ability to have nuance. Good guy, bad thinking.

God damn that was some fine writing. Bravo and thank you for posting.

1) Lobbyists, for all intents and purposes, do buy politicians. The NRA has a large cross section of Congress at their beck and call. It's among several lobbies that are far too powerful. So yes - bought. 2) No, I'm not wrong. The book I cited absolutely has a balanced approach, some of the research favoring interpretations, others not. But the book makes plainly clear that Madison's notes on guns were exclusively about a militia, not individual rights. This may be of interest. Interpretation here is very much up for debate, but Madison's notes in the book I cited merely talk about the milita, not an individual right. 5) No, it would've had no chance because this guy was 15 at 9/11. Was your plan to deport him and think that's the end of it? I mean, that's just comically ill-thought. 6) No freedom is worth a nightclub full of dead people. Or a classroom full of dead six year olds. Especially not when that freedom simply needs to be rolled back slightly, not eliminated. That you feel the need to have a high caliber, high magazine fire arm and shrug at the slaughter of 1st graders should tell you something about your priorities in life. And mental health is a cute thing we toss around with this but let's be real clear: we talk about "this guy had mental issues!" after the fact. A tiny fraction of the people who commit these have any documented mental health issues. And, even if they did - you and your lobby do almost nothing to pass legislation to those with demonstrated mental health issues from getting a gun. And, even worse, stigmatizes mental health as the catch all for anything evil. But if I were you, I'd just concentrate on the fact that your "I gotta have me a machine gun, if a first grade classroom has to be a bloodbath...so be it" priority may be a touch off.

We need not have one solution. Again, nuance and diversity of thought here. Is it not possible to both fight the scourge of radical Islam while also fighting to outlaw large magazine clips? Or to campaign heavily against popular opinion of guns? This is not going to be a war fought on one front so picking and choosing which ones are important are only going to ignore others that are. We need to look at it with open eyes - why are people doing this? In this case, and in Paris and many other places, it is a combination of accessibility of military grade weaponry, Islam, and hate. Taking apart one from the others doesn't solve the problem. It just makes you feel like you are.

You questioned why the "why?" was important at all. It's important because that "why?" is why so much of this is happening here and around the world. Confronting and changing that "why?" for the better is going to be an ongoing struggle for the rest of our lives. To go back to your original post - "preventing these tragedies" is absolutely tied in with why they are happening. And the solution, ultimately, will be helping with why it's happening as well.

What obscures nuance is the idea that correctly identifying Islam as part of these situations is somehow racist. It's not. It's also foolish to somehow separate the organization from the organization's unifying message. The Inquisition was Christianity. So was the Crusades. Terrorism in the 21st century is largely Islamic. There is nothing wrong with saying it. This man, at least in part, was motivated by his religion. Or wrapped his justification in it. Before this act ever happened he was investigated by the FBI for suspicion. ISIS has called upon lone wolves to act like this because we have cut off avenues for recruits to arrive in their midst. This is part of their playbook, San Bernadino was the same. That this guy wasn't plugged into ISIS directly is a bit irrelevant. The organizations are just a reflection of the real problem. Bush made the same mistake, hell, many of us did when thinking about the middle east. This isn't a snake you can cut the head off of, this is an idea and organizations have come and gone and will come and go....the idea, the radical, violent, intolerant set of beliefs - that's the enemy. If we don't understand the motivations and ties, we don't understand how to rid ourselves of it. We could do exactly what Trump wants an nuke ISIS out of existence and the organization you apparently believe is the end all, be all of the conversation will be destroyed. But will the problem? The answer, simply, is no. ISIS is living evidence of that. No, the problem is more insidious and more difficult to redeem because it's an idea wrapped inside the power of religion. But we have no chance of beating it if we treat it like Voldemort every time we talk about it.

What motivates hate is important. When it is a system with millions of adherents - it matters even more. I doubt, if the KKK was carrying out such attacks, you'd have such difficulty identifying it for what it is. I don't like lima beans, doesn't mean I hate veggies. I can both openly identify and condemn radical Islam and love the people of the faith. That appears to be a distinction you are incapable of and it's one shared by many of your political persuasion. Liberalism, in general these days, seems incapable of nuance. (It's becoming an ugly reflection of the right's same inability)