chasfh

OK.

I mean, 1984 was great in its own right, of course, but 1987 was special to me because we had to make up a three- or four-game in the last week, and we did. That's the first team I rooted for that had ever done anything like that, and it was magic.

Of course we hope for both, but that just short-circuits the this-or-that question, so if you'd like to, tell us which of the two you'd prefer.

Of course.

Two of my favorite teams were the 1987 and 2013 teams, and they didn't even go to the Series.

Exactly.

This raises an interesting question: if we sign Correa and keep him for the next ten years, from a fan standpoint, would we be happier if we won one title and sucked for the other nine years, or would we be happier making the playoffs most of those years and never winning even one title? I suppose the closest analogous comparison I can think of is the 2010s Royals, who were mostly under .500 but won one ring, versus the 1996-2005 Braves, who went to the playoffs every year for ten years but didn’t win any rings during that time. Or, if we want to keep the comparisons to the 2010s, how about the Yankees, who went to seven playoffs without winning a ring. Which circumstance would I be happier with during a Correa decade? I think I’d be happier overall with the playoffs every year even without a ring, versus sitting on Ring Island surrounded by the Under Five Hundred Sea. Sure, it would be a little sad never converting the playoffs to a championship, but at least I’d have fun during the ten regular seasons instead of wailing and gnashing my teeth in despair the other nine.

Trying to “buck-buck-buckawwww-chicken” Mike Ilitch into offering $30M/year contracts. I like your style.

Yeah, 2008. Those were the days, huh?

Wake up and … what?

So there’s some magic line in there up to which a black kid can defend himself, where anything less than that allows him to get bullied and assaulted by an armed thug, and anything more than that he deserves what’s coming to him? I suppose The Talk that black parents give their young boys contemplates that line.

I guess Trump has until, what, tomorrow? To kick it upstairs and get the ruling he wants. Isn’t the White House releasing tomorrow? I wonder whether that will get delayed by negotiations?

You knew the kid was going to get exonerated the moment you heard the Judge insisted the people who got shot should be referred to as “looters” and “arsonists”, but cannot be referred to as “victims”. He might walk away a hero and become rich as a pundit and spokesman because of this.

This is a big reason why they got so worked up over it.

Christin Stewart made roughly $3 million from his time in professional baseball. I hope he saved and invested wisely. Godspeed to him.

Love Boat opening credits repurposed to include every single guest star they have ever had, in alphabetical order. How much time ya got?

I don’t know any Democrat that matters who parrots that. Who gets asked about it still? I haven’t seen anything serious in the news about it in probably a year. I would expect Bunker to troll us with that, but why do you keep hammering Democrats on it? You know it’s a big nothing to the Democratic Party, so what are you trying to put across here?

Of course it’s not a good slogan. It’s a shit slogan, and no one who matters in politics ever embraced it. The Democratic Party disavowed it en masse months before the election, and the only reason why people are still hammering them with it is because … well, I don’t know. You keep doing it, so you tell me why.

Oh, for Christ’s sake, stop with the “defund the police” horseshit already, would you? No one who matters supports that idea, and Sarah Lawrence undergrads marching around in pussy hats don’t matter. The only reason it still exists as a term is because red hats want desperately to continue hanging it on Democrats, and all you’re doing is helping their cause.

It costs nothing to just say of course he would have won, because we'll never know, but I'm with you. I wonder as well.

I'd have a different opinion about all this if the national popular vote mattered in presidential elections.

A person of color didn't run for president as a Democrat the last election. A white man did. I think you knew that, though. As things stand today, I believe Buttigieg would lose enough conservative Democrat voters to overcome his own white-manness and lose the election. Maybe it'll be different by 2024, but I wouldn't stake the party on it.

I know this is a terrible thing to say well into the 21st Century, but I'm an old man with a bit of leeway, so I will: if the Democrats run anyone with an identifiable minority trait—woman, person of color, non-Christian, non-heteronormative, certainly any combination of two or more—they will probably lose. If there were any one candidate with one or more of those traits whom I think would have any decent chance to beat Trump, it would be Al Franken. I can think of no one else at this time. No woman. No person of color. Not Chuck Schumer. Not Pete Buttigieg. No one. At least not as of today.

I found the source of the problem: it was because of an add-on called DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials. There is a specific setting within that blocks the rendering of tweets on other websites within Firefox: Change the setting and the tweets are allowed through. So ... there you go.