chasfh

Jahmai Jones takes the borderline called third and leaves one challenge on the board.

This team is a walking dead worst-case scenario.

I know he won't address it, because it's a checkmate question. If he were to reply at all, I would guess it would be with a whataboutism.

Christ Almighty, you red hats, what else do you need to hear!

LaceyLou, you are FIRE! The 1850s would actually be perfect for him: slavery still in force, nation divided and ripe for the pickings ...

Sorry, out of reactions: 😂

I suggested some time ago in one of these threads that the league should announce a year in advance that they're changing the ball the following season, then as soon as the season is over, give a few dozen of the new baseballs to every player who requests them so they can get used to them over the winter, and they can come into camp familiar with it if they want to make themselves so. Maybe I should suggest that to the commissioner. rmanfred@mlb.com—that should get there.

I can't add any more reactions today, but 😂

My Mets friend is salivating a bit because he knows the Tigers are struggling through injuries and losing, and the Mets are a heady 5-5 in their last 10, so yeah, I would like the Tigers to stick it up his butt. 😁

I have to admit my thinking on colored uniforms was shaped by my eleven-year-old self. I loved the green, gold, and white A's uniforms, and I still do, but I don't like them on just about any other team.

Maybe some of them want to go back to the '50s, but Trump and his inner circle are explicitly trying to force the country back into the Gilded Age.

Naw, I agree with you, he's never going to face justice. I'm just left hoping that when he realizes he is going to die soon, he doesn't have the nuclear button within reach.

At least someone got their $100 worth!

One nation, under Don, divided for his convenience, with liberty for him, and loyalty oaths for the rest of us.

I am pretty firmly on the left, and I am neither anti-American nor anti-western. I say that because I think it matters when evaluating whether the left, as a governing political force, has been captured by antisemitism, and I don't think it has. On Israel specifically: I don't think the "colonizer" framing is wholly inaccurate. A significant strand of Zionist ideology has drifted rightward over decades toward expanded settlement, annexation, and in some quarters explicitly expulsionist thinking. That's documentable, not propaganda. And criticizing that trajectory isn't antisemitism, even if some people putatively on my side of the aisle weaponize the criticism in antisemitic ways. On the broader point, I agree that rhetoric matters. But the distance between fringe influence and governing control is not the same on both sides right now, and I think that distinction is doing a lot of work that we keep glossing over. You mention presumed leaders of the far left now, and I know who Ilhan Omar is, but I had to look up Rossana Rodriguez, because I had no idea who she was. That's not an accident, because she's fringe. By contrast, the figures who set the Republican governing agenda are not fringe anymore—they are the agenda. The asymmetry is real and significant. Are there people on the left moving toward antisemitism? Yes. Are there more than there used to be? Perhaps, maybe even probably. Is there any realistic danger they seize control of the Democratic Party the way nativist, antisemitism-coded elements have routinely seized control of conservative and reactionary parties throughout history, and are doing right now in the GOP? I don't see it. I don't think it's even close. I'd just ask that we not fall into the trap of a "pox on both houses" framing, because while that feels fair and balanced, it obscures the fact that the two poxes are nowhere near alike in scope, scale, or institutional capture.

Of course Republicans roundly criticize Democrats for that. i would expect nothing less.

I promise you that, if the **** ever does come down for him in some beautiful world, he will claim someone else posted his “truths” and that he had no knowledge of it, and he will expect that argument will stick. Not for nothing, I also predict that if he ever goes to trial for his dismantling of America’s greatness, he will show up with newly grayed hair and either using a walker or sitting in a wheelchair.

Exactly what I mean.

I’m always envious of grocery stores I go to in just about every other city. It doesn’t matter where I go—Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama, Idaho, you name it—they are always bigger, brighter, cleaner, better-stocked, and more orderly than ours in the city are. They’re cramped like 1980s, and they’re generally dirty, like dirt caked onto the floor kind of thing, with routinely under-stocked shelves with big holes where products are supposed to be. Even when I go in the afternoon, there are still palates in aisles waiting to be unloaded, with no one around in sight. And it’s not just Krogeriano’s, which is bad enough … it’s Jewel, it’s Aldi, it’s Pete’s, it’s Fresh Market, it’s Cermak, it’s all of them. I love this city I’m in, but the grocery store vibe here is one real downside to it.

TBF, it’s hard to exactly nail the dialogue of a whole other bygone era when you don’t live during the era. TB even more F, you don’t have to nail it exactly—you have only to make it seem to the modern audience that you have.

Unmentioned in the Times story but mentioned on CNN: the price index rose 0.6% for this month alone, the equivalent of 7% or so annual inflation.

A distinction without a difference.

You're describing real things, and I don't want to minimize any of it. The incidents in Chicago, the university harassment, the attacks on Jewish students, the Johnson administration's handling of that human rights report. All of that is documented, troubling, and worth calling out forcefully. But here's where I'd draw the line: what you're describing is a surge in antisemitic behavior in urban areas, much of it traceable to radicalized fringe actors, online agitators, and a specific political moment inflamed by the Gaza war. That's real. What I would resist is the leap from that to "the left"—let alone the Democratic Party—having embraced antisemitism as a core value. Johnson's handling of that report was cowardly and shameful. But a cowardly and shameful response as a concession borne of political calculation isn't the same as core ideological antisemitism, and it's definitely not representative of Democratic governance writ large. The far left has absolutely provided cover for some of this, and that's a legitimate indictment of a certain strain of activist politics. But the far left isn't the Democratic Party, and recognizing the asymmetry that exists matters, because the Republican Party has largely been taken over by its radical wing, to the point where figures who would have been considered fringe a decade ago now set the governing agenda. That's not at all true of the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and the party's mainstream leadership have been meaningfully critical of campus antisemitism and pro-Hamas rhetoric. The Democratic Party hasn't been captured by its loudest voices the way the GOP has, and pretending the two situations are equivalent in the interest of both-sidism actually lets the bad actors on the left off the hook by miscasting all this as mainstream partisan symmetry, rather than specific aberrant behavior that demands to be condemned. So, yes to everything you're citing as real. No to the implication that Democrats own antisemitism as a value.