chasfh

This particular quote, in context with what went before it, refers to people who have previously occupied the offices of the president and the pope in general, not these two specific people. In any event, the conflict is not one-directional as you imply, since Leo is specifically responding to Trump's words and his actions in Iran. It's true that Trump is breathing fire at Leo who is deftly using verbal jiu-jitsu to respond, so in that sense the hostility attribute is definitely one-sided. But since Leo is engaging instead of ignoring, he does have a role, however softly pedaled, in the conflict. You may disagree, but that's how it looks to me.

When Kamala went on The View and said that she wouldn't have done anything different from President Joe Biden. She got caught flat-footed and didn't have a answer to it. To many people, it made her look unprepared. Kamala was criticized when she was asked about the U.S. relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when she gave a lengthy, somewhat circuitous answer that critics labeled "word salad". This was also the interview Trump sued over, and although that's not her fault, it did get hung on her. When she cracked a beer with Colbert on his show, it was criticized as "forced" and "unpresidential". During a rally with Oprah Winfrey, Kamala was asked a direct question about her plan to lower the cost of living. Her response was a two-minute monologue about "what is possible" and "commonality" which was widely ridiculed online for failing to provide a concrete policy answer. Taken separately, maybe not all of these would draw so much attention, but they start compounding on one another and may have hurt her vote totals. You may think none of these are flubs, which is your prerogative, but she did get criticized for all these. Not to put too fine a point on it, most would agree that these are the kinds of things a white male candidate can get away with more than a female candidate of color. And, of course, the Charli XCX Brat thing didn't help, either.

Yeah, "Polack" jokes were a thing around the country during the 70s for sure, and probably into the 80s.

Well put, agree with almost all of it. As for Kamala, she might be a brilliant political tactician, but during conversation she got caught flat-footed too often for my liking. I rooted for her to win still, but I can see why people peeled off after a couple of high-profile flubs. The whole Charli XCX Brat thing sure didn't help, either.

That wasn't the only time he did the hop only to fly out. Sammy was a goldfish when it came to that kind of thing.

Who knows, maybe Gage can become the LHB utility guy when McStinky stinks his way out of town. 😉

If you can provide evidence that the ATT/DirecTV you cite is the exact same technology the Tigers use for audio overlay leading to the problems you both experience, and that other teams don't experience this problem because they use different technology than you and the Tigers do, then OK, you have my attention. Until then, agree to disagree.

Do you remember what else was commonplace during that era? Don't bother guessing, I'll just tell you: Polish jokes. I heard them constantly, several of them every day during my childhood, in and outside the home. And this in Warren, a city which is in the conversation for most Polish city in the United States. And that's another thing that brought home the insidiousness of racist words and ideas to me: it took me until well into my 20s before I completely eradicated the notion that Polish people are naturally intellectually inferior because they are Polish. I know, sounds dumb, right? And of course it is. But when you're a child growing up in a certain time and place, and you're constantly inundated with rhetoric disparaging the intellectual capacities of Polish people, even in mostly joke form, and nobody around you is even bothering to dispute it, that's how a child becomes acculturated to thinking about it. It took me a long time to get past that idea to the point where it doesn't even occur to me in that way anymore, not even as an historical artifact of my upbringing. I'm not proud of it, but I don't consider it my fault, either. Words matter.

And you believe that based on your experience with a substantially different technology, and despite that almost no other teams experience this same problem, the Tigers, and by extension anyone else, are unable to fix this problem? I don't have anywhere near your technical expertise, but absent any actual evidence, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

😉

I remember being so steeped in casual racism where and when I grew up—around Warren in the 60s/70s and then working at any number of crap manual labor jobs into the mid-80s—that when I finally got an office job in the late 80s, I specifically remember remarking to myself how surprised I was that I had worked there an entire year and not once did I ever hear anyone drop a N bomb. Once I started thinking about and examining that phenomenon more closely, the way I thought about racism and racist language shifted radically. I have been back to the area plenty since I left over three decades ago and i can tell you that too many working-class white east side suburbanites are still like that. Sigh.

We can add Dillon Dingler to that, for as long as he's going to be any good, since he's already under team control through his age 31 season.

If Skubal signs for $300MM then it's going to be for five years, not nine. Which is fine with me.

I know. Just sayin'.

I love this organization! Tarik Skubal: ball’s in your court. How bad do you want to be part of this?

Lessons for the Democrats? By Calder McHugh Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks during the 2026 Liberal National Convention in Montreal, Canada, on April 11, 2026. | Andrej Ivanov/AFP via Getty Images MONTREAL — What happened last year in Canada is by now a matter of political lore. Harnessing a wave of Canadian nationalism in opposition to U.S. President Donald Trump’s belligerent rhetoric, Prime Minister Mark Carney implored voters to get their “elbows up” and led his Liberal Party to victory after trailing badly in the polls. Then, in January, Carney won international acclaim for delivering the most consequential speech at Davos, arguing that a “rupture in the world order” required a new approach from middle powers like Canada. Yet even as Carney’s global stature grew and his popularity surged, his Liberal Party remained short of a majority government — until last night. By sweeping three special elections, Carney finally has a majority in Parliament. The victory should keep Carney in office until 2029, and it enables him to more easily enact a domestic agenda that includes trade policies designed to reduce Canada’s economic reliance on the United States. But it also offers lessons for center-left parties around the globe as they struggle for relevance amid the rise of the populist far right. The election results come on the heels of a jarring — and perhaps revealing — moment in Canadian politics. Last week, Marilyn Gladu, a former Conservative MP, crossed the floor to join the Liberals, becoming the fifth member in a year to do so, along with three other Conservatives and a New Democrat. Gladu, however, stood out among the group. A social conservative who won her safely Conservative riding in 2025 by over 15 points, when she arrived on stage at the Liberal Party Convention in Montréal on Friday, she was such an unlikely convert that her appearance was met with a mix of modest applause and pointedly folded arms. In the media scrum afterward, as journalists shouted questions about her seemingly contradictory past positions, she insisted that this is what her constituents want. “It’s going to be good for the riding … good for the country … and it’s good for me personally as well,” Gladu said. The last point is the operative one. Success has begotten success for Canada’s Liberals. People like a winner. And Carney has laid the groundwork for this directional change. As POLITICO’s Nick Taylor-Vaisey recently noted, the current version of Canada’s Liberals looks a lot more like that of the early 2000s, when social conservatives were more commonplace within the party. And while much has been made of the backlash to Trump that has advanced Liberal Party fortunes, Carney has also signaled he intends to be a big-tent leader, ideologically and stylistically different from his more polarizing predecessor, Justin Trudeau. A technocratic former central banker more comfortable in board rooms than on the stump, Carney has nevertheless leaned into gladhanding with voters. He has cast himself as a change candidate — and revisited a decade of Liberal policy on climate, taxes and federal public service expansion — without entirely jettisoning Trudeau’s priorities. “If I’m a Conservative … I want to campaign against giving Liberals a fifth term rather than Mark Carney a second,” said Gerald Butts, the chairman of the Eurasia Group and a senior strategic advisor to Carney and Trudeau. “But in order to do that, you have to make the case that he’s the same old, same old. And I think that’s going to be a tough brief.” For now, as political parties of all stripes around the globe become more insular and more insistent on purity tests, Carney’s broadening of the definition of a Canadian Liberal is expanding his coalition at home. And his willingness to forcefully buck the United States has made him a leader in nascent global attempts to build a new Western alliance without Washington as its beating heart. But, as pollster Philippe Fournier said, “When you have a big tent, how much can you stretch the fabric until it snaps?”

As long as it's a free and fair election, I agree.

What is the problem you see in the article quoted in the meme that highlights your point? I'm missing it.

It's out fault—they were telling us exactly what they were doing by projecting onto their enemies, and we weren't sophisticated to see that in the moment.

Once Harris got his hands on them!

And he said it in public! And it was considered OK!

Blame the technology instead of the AV crew if you like, but it hasn't escaped my notice that almost no other team's broadcast has the same problem.

Already spiking the football on Gage Workman to the full credit of Al Avila, are we? 😁

It's debatable how racist Branch Rickey himself might have been—he was born in 19th Century America, after all, so even if he were in, say, the least racist 10% of the white population of the time, he almost surely still engaged in a paternalism borne of the assurance of an entrenched superior racial status. But it is also completely understandable that Rickey had to be very careful to choose the one black player who would be the most acceptable/least unacceptable to the out racists among his colleagues. There were any number of other players Rickey could have selected who would not have had the fortitude to withstand the brickbats of the first two years and, as importantly, to finally stand up for himself on the field starting in year three. That third year was crucial in the development of black player acceptance, because it paved the way for Jack and the others to be regarded as a player same as everyone else, and not just as a novelty colored player. RIP Jackie Robinson.

Also, the Yankees. Remember what Casey Stengel said about Elston Howard.