Ultima Ratio

1. We should be clear about what "meddling" means. Influence by use of money, other material gain, political support, military use et cetera? Since this word is being used here to argue that we are creating terrorists because we've "meddled," it seems important to know what you all mean. Why? 2. Because we've exerted (meddled) influence in almost every corner of the world and I don't believe every corner of the world has put anything like a "fatwa" for meddling in their zones of influence in the past. 3. Therefore, while it may be a contributing cause, I don't think "meddling" can be shown to be the primary cause for the creation of terrorism. 4. The more likely causes are ignorance perpetuated by lack of education, religious and culturally fixed view about the West (which they find obscene and encroaching on their religious/cultural values), and the fact the violence and conquest is how their religion began and spread. 5. Just for illustration, and do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we Vietnam was meddled with a great deal in their history -- China was always their greatest foe, then the French came, then Soviet influence, then The USA came. Yet, we have normalized relations with all of Vietnam and they are possibly our greatest ally in the region even after so much carpet bombing, money, US military presence et cetera. We've "meddled" plenty there, yet somehow it only took a couple decades after this conflict to normalize relations throughout. Also, I would guess that the culture and religious views of SE Asia are/were just as foreign as those of the Middle East and central Asia. I think this points to something other than "meddling" as the sole or primary cause of terrorism exported from that region.

Curse of the trees is just the latest curse then.

But carry this maxim out. If we find one (many, several) person offended by something, the object of the offense must be withdrawn. This is impractical. I'm offended that you are offended. So stop? Seriously, burning the flag is offensive to many. Intent matters here. It's offensive to many when done so out of disrespect of hatred for America, but not so when the flag is old and worn -- to dispose of it. That many are offended does not mean that the freedom of expression, even when the intent is explicitly to offend, is curtailed. Nor should it be. You do not have the right not to be offended.

CF will be blocked by Doumit next year, so Mauer to third I guess.

Not talking down to you at all, just showing you your error. I'm wrong about a lot of things, and I try not to get embarrassed or mad when I'm shown I'm wrong. It's okay to disagree, but I want to make sure the disagreement is only after we are clear about the content. Intent does matter, and that needed to be made clear before would can now continue to disagree that these logos (intend?) to harm people. Maybe it still doesn't matter to you. I guess I don't see why intent shouldn't matter.

malice aforethought is meaningless, huh? We ought to get rid of the distinction of 1st degree murder and manslaughter? Oh boy. Manslaughter If a murder does not qualify by statute for first-degree murder, it is charged as second-degree murder. A second-degree murder may be downgraded to Manslaughter if mitigating factors were involved in the killing, such as adequate provocation by the victim, or the absence of intent or recklessness on the part of the defendant. First degree murder: A killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or with certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill

Look up fallacy of complex question and then poisoning the well for the end there. Uh, where did you ever get the idea that my view is all minorities must think alike. Quite Orwellian. Quite the absolute opposite. Citing a poll (yes there are problems with every poll) and showing that a majority of those who you'd think would be the ones offended, but are not, don't mean I think they all should believe this. What it shows is that those you'd' think are closest and most deeply hurt (if hurt at all) would be those making the loudest noise. Empirically we know this to be false. The loudest noise come from the selectively and anachronistically outraged do-gooders, stamping out every last vestige of possible offense and racial stereotype no matter the cost. Again, if this is really an important issue for you, you'll be speaking out against all perceived offenses. There are many to choose from, so I wonder what the next target will be? No thought about the consistency of using one's voice to change perceived offensive in sports but not going after newspapers? Bigger and final point. What are we achieving by this if the names/logos are changed? Will this really help to finally once and for all end racial stereotypes/bigotry? Will it have an impact at all. How will we know and agree that the new names and logos are not offense to somebody somewhere? Will it matter? I suppose it's just the right thing to do…. until it isn't, and then we can change it again.

Comics enjoy the freedom and right to draw and otherwise lampoon religious figures held sacred by many. Quite a few posters here love to ridicule religion full stop, but largely just Christianity. No doubt comics that work for newspapers who lampoon Jesus, Moses, Buddha or whatever; they offend many. Should they be forced to stop the presses? We've already seen that comics won't dare to lampoon "Allah" in their strips and those brave enough to do so have been killed or are living in hiding. Surely these comics are offensive to the point were those offended are super-duper offended that the offense merits death -- so the newspapers (private business ventures all of them) like any private business in the NFL and MLB should be silenced or change their comics/names/logs to more appetizing and benign objects. I think I have that right. Tolerance is a two-way street. Don't try to offend someone especially with malice, but if you find yourself offended, try to be tolerant also. Keep free speech alive. Or being principled and go after every single freaky offense and completely paralyze expression.

Okay, so some native do support it and some don't -- since you and I aren't natives so we don't get to vote right? And, so what then? Yes, I can't tell you what offends you, and I haven't BTW. But look at the poll from that ESPN article. Those who are relevantly impacted by the word overwhelmingly are not offended. You are. Okay, so we should change the name on those grounds? Where is the inference?

But A) Redskins refers to the red paint the natives wore when going into battle, having nothing to do with the color/race of native, and even if one sees it as referring to skin color today because (yes it's been a word use as a slur by some), it's also been used by natives in the form of red man, white man et cetera. All these discussions are wildly anachronistic. The meaning of words can change over time, but intent if the most important element to look at when gauging harassment and offense. We have no reason to believe the word Indian or Redskin with respect to the teams, was ever drawn up with the intent to offend or marginalize. Why doesn't this matter to you? I'll take a shot, and this is the reason why these issues are only getting the push they are now -- it's because we're changing the laws and ethos with respect to when offense and harassment happen. Now "intent" is irrelevant. Only outcome of feelings are relevant. So when, you look at a women's shirt because it has a funny picture on it, it doesn't matter if you were ogling her or not, harassment has occurred if she feels uncomfortable. Likewise, offense of words are apparently reached solely on the grounds that someone is…uncomfortable/offended. If that is the metric or calculus we've arrived at in society then what else needs reforming? How many people and what kind of people must be offended for something to be offensive enough to change it? At what point will we being doing more harm than good? How will we know it?

You're not sure why I get to have an opinion? Come on. Why do you? Again, as mentioned in the ESPN article on the Redskins, most American Indians (is that term okay?) don't care and many of the reservation schools have adopted the trademarks for their own. So you're saying it's okay from them to do so, but not for an NFL, MLB team, even when those who are supposed to offended are not? As I said in that other thread: I find that reasoning bigoted. If you're not saying that American Indians should be offended when in fact they are not, what are you saying?

Sorry, I meant to respond to one post in particular which was going the route of: it's wrong to have these names and logos ESPECIALLY because the owners of these teams are white and descendents of slave owners. As if that's A) true, and a relevancy. I'm going out on a limb here suggesting that the vast majority of fans and people okay with both the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins names and logos do not hate or have some person prejudicial animus. That's what needed to be curtailed.

Minnie and Paul are both pasty white, googly-eyed dopes. One might say this cartoon logo is of whites only so therefore racially insensitive by not representing other pigments in the Minnesota area or its fans, Or, one might think the cartoon is a wretched depiction of whites in the area. Or, you might not have a problem with it. But we can all agree that the owners selfishly cling to this dopey cartoon from ages past for selfish reasons. Got it. Hey, at least my analogy gives one the opportunity to find no fault in the logo. For the record, I find no problem with it. Then again, I'm white so what do I know and what does my opinion matter if it's not the "correct" opinion? I'm just curious that if the Indians left the logo, but changed their colors to purple and green, would this be acceptable? Final ancillary note: When people bring up slavery to bash America, Americans and white Americans I always wonder how much of their knowledge and perspective is from popular culture and myth, and how much is from an informed reading of world history. Virtually every color of people have been enslaved and held slaves themselves. Slavery is an economic institution that has been around for upwards of 4000 years. Slavery was not unique to America. What was unique about Slavery in America is that it only was legal for 89 years, then abolished. The first slave owner in America (the colonies) was black. American Indians practiced slavery before and after the white man arrived. Only ~4% of all slaves from Africa came to the U.S. They were sold by black Africans. In 1860, only ~10% of the white population in the South owned slaves. Less than 1.5% of whites in America owned slaves in 1860 In New Orleans in 1860 3,000 free blacks owned slaves. That's 28% of the free blacks owned slaves there. So please stop with the hate America, whites should feel guilty and uber sensitive meme. Slavery is a horrible institution but ought not be used at every opportunity to further some social justice measure or to bash those who don't find some logos and nicknames offensive. To do so is facile, but lazy and factually wrong.

If Hicks makes the 25 man to begin the year, I quit. If he's promoted from AAA with anything less than a .700 OPS, I quit.

Yes. The man who knows that gravity is the cause of objects falling to earth surely has better explanatory and predictive power than the man who believes that objects fall to earth because those objects have more of the earth element in them than other elements like fire and wind.

I know the ACA doesn't include dental, but does it include eye care? If not, why not include both dental and eye care? You're going to need it at some time after all and it's probably even the moral (perhaps Christian) thing to do -- perhaps even the constitutional thing to do if your reading of the general welfare clause is such that welfare means the government/tax payers must pay for and provide any service that could possibly be categorized under the broad umbrella of "welfare." 1. How many programs, how much money, how big a bureaucracy will it take in order to fulfill this constitutional promise? 2. When will we know when we've achieved it?

Not so bold prediction: The only FA signed this winter will be Pelfrey. Ergo: Correia, Pelfrey, Deduno, Gibson, Worley This sadly but likely will be the rotation.

Good move. It helps fill the gaping leadership and accountability void by coaches and more importantly at this point and with this roster: players.

I'll second that. Slowest site I visit.

Can he pitch?

1. "I wish someone could explain to me how a Christian could oppose the Affordable Care Act." This is your opening line. You obviously think Christians have an obligation to support the ACA, no? This is only about beliefs and what you think Christianity teaches Christians about hiring their government to compel of its citizens. You realize that of the uninsured in the country, only a small percentage was wanting but unable to afford/be insurable, right? The vast majority do not have insurance by choice and many will pay the fine (tax*) which will be cheaper than purchasing the bronze plan. Furthermore, 2. Don't we already have medicaid? Last, you should go to the ACA enrollment Facebook page and read the complaints. Even the bronze plan is still unaffordable for many. They are shocked, thinking they would qualify for a subsidy and now realizing that it's not in their budget. My insurance premiums and deductible are going up dramatically because of the ACA -- as are most peoples'. My understanding is that Jesus' message was personal. Only you can repent and save yourself with the grace of God. One has a personal obligation to serve God and those who cannot help themselves. One has the obligation to be charitable with one's own blessings (not just money), but one does NOT have the obligation to be charitable with others blessings. In fact, this is immoral. This is a job killer, wage reducer, full-time to less than 30 hour work week, 2.6 trillion to the debt increasing over the next ten years unpopular law; which also is full of exceptions and waivers, making the application of the law different from what was originally passed and unequal. One could go on and on, but no, I don't think Jesus has the choirs in Heaven singing gilded hymns.

Is a Christian allowed to believe in free markets and equal application of laws?

If this is the case, then watch the readership and posters dwindle. If you have a problem with the tone from a particular poster, it would be better to do so individually than censor perfectly acceptable words. I think this is case of casting nets to wide, especially if only to catch one or a few fish.

There's probably a war on women too. Not a-one of them have been drafted, signed or extended -- ever.

Don't really care about the 2-year extension at this point. Gardy is somewhere around problem number 38 on this team. Problems 37-34 are the other coaches and problems 1-33 are the replacement players on the 40-man roster.