Posted on 10/17/2003 10:38:34 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
I’ve been a true-blue, hard-core Marlins fan for several weeks now. I watched the Marlins/Cubs series religiously, which coincidentally is the same way I approach Church attendance, once a year, and during a specific season…but never mind that, we’re talking sports and politics right now.
I grew a passionate and ardent (is that redundant, or did I just repeat myself?), dislike for the Cubs, whom as I came to find out reside in Chicago, which is north of here (then again, everything is north of here) the moment I found out that they were a baseball team. This team, as it turned out, would be playing my beloved Marlins; which is a fish as are all championship teams in Florida, with the possible exception of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the Florida State Seminoles, the University of Miami Hurricanes, the University of Florida Gators, the Jacksonville Jaguars, and perhaps several others. Cubs on the other hand, are apparently some species of goat, at least according to everything I saw written about them on Internet forums this past few weeks.
The fact that they came down from the north explained the gazillion fans in our stadium for their games, as everyone here is from the north, the north of course, being all north of here. It also explained why there never seemed to be any Marlin fans cheering for the Fish back in Chicago, most northbound travel by south Floridians dead ends in any motel in the general vicinity of Disney World that features a free continental breakfast, or in the case of my people, on any beach where we can dry our feet before the Border Patrol arrives.
My dislike for these Cubs grew as I watched my beloved Marlins play the perfect hosts, graciously allowing them to score runs at will, while in turn, in very unsportsmanlike manner I might add, they refused to return the favor. I understood their rudeness a tad better later, after reading about the frustration felt by Cubs players and fans at having played non-stop baseball with no significant results since the Taft administration. All these things, along with the fact that the inconvenient game scheduling caused many TIVo controversies between the games, Bachelor Bob in the evenings, and a similarly named sponge in the afternoons (or maybe, it was the other way around), didn’t help the goats from Chicago make many friends in this loyal Marlin household.
The most interesting aspects of America’s pastime to me are the unbelievable amount of trivia involved, the great anecdotes, and the fact that there are no actual Americans playing the game anymore; I was soon immersed in the sport, and learned an interesting fact about one of the stars of the goats from the windy city; he had apparently behaved badly somewhere along the way to the championship and broken a bat, exposing the corked center. This of course, is against League rules, as bats are quite expensive, and players are most certainly required to take better care of the team’s equipment.
This bit of news actually helped me be a better Dad in the eyes of my seven year-old, as I was finally able to explain to him exactly how they could make metal bats that weighed so little...corked centers. What I could not explain however, is how the goat superstar from Chicago had avoided being sent to the batter’s box, which as we had both learned from watching hockey some years ago when the Florida Panthers made the playoffs, is where players that behave badly get to serve their time-outs. We figured that he was much too important a goat for time-out, and he simply ignored the whole thing, pretending it never happened.
It was while listening to the radio one afternoon that I learned about the curious tradition of yelling “CORK!” anytime the aforementioned goat star shattered a bat. A series tradition unless of course, you were a fan of the Goats, in which case, you pretended that the whole cork thing had either been a huge misunderstanding, or had not happened at all. It does appear however, that even when the bat doesn’t break, the ghost of the cork rears its ugly head, and the opposing fans strive to discredit every hit made by the goat star.
I learned all these things while flipping stations between Bachelor Bob, the similarly named sponge, the ball games, and the news, where a story about a political commentator who had once been hired to do commentary on sports shows, was also getting a lot of coverage.
You remember this guy. It was the guy who made an observation about the fact that A) some quarterback was not as good as everyone said he was, and B) that he was black. The statements, while being true in and of themselves, mentioned in the same sentence became a truth that everyone wanted to pretend did not exist. So he had to quit commenting on the politics of sports, and return to commenting strictly on the sport of politics.
Well, in the middle of the series, this guy’s right smack dab in the news again.
From everything I was able to gather, it seems that he had himself been playing fast and loose with the rules, and someone exposed him. He issued an apology and secluded himself from his job in an attempt to either escape further scrutiny, or maybe just trying to do the right thing. However, from the looks of things, the other team won’t let this just slide by unnoticed, and they’re jumping up and down yelling, “Cork!” at every opportunity.
This led me to think that perhaps, he should have corked it, and his fans could have made the whole thing out to be a huge misunderstanding, or even that it had not happened at all, which was after all, good enough for the goat with the cork in the bat. However, the commentator took the illogical route once again, and opted to tell the truth, which, as we see illustrated so often these days, is not a good thing to do.
Things however, seem to have a funny way of working themselves out, and in the same way that the goat with the cork failed to achieve significant results after playing possum, the commentator being played as a scapegoat for not having corked it, will probably find significance in his seclusion, and come back swinging.
The other team of course, will never allow him to forget his rule breakage, and try to taint his game by constantly reminding everyone of his past transgressions. In an attempt to discredit every point made by the political commentator, and maybe even to make him out to be a hypocrite, and a master of the art of double speak.
It’s OK; they never liked the way he played ball anyway.
But that’s baseball, ain’t it folks?
Me?
I’m excited and looking forward to the upcoming All South Florida World Series between the Marlins, and our other home team, los Yankis.
You are OK with legalizing marijuana but oppose further lessening of drug criminalization.
To your credit, you describe this position as hypocritical.
In the next post to me you say:
By the way. Your tagline has a tremendous fallacy. There is c) both.
This is a clue to the source of your dilemma. If your positions are not based on principle, inconsistencies will inevitably occur.
Regards
J.R.
By this article.
Even though I understood it.
True. But a political party is not a principle.
...you don't get to either set them in place, nor do you get to place yours above them.
Principle is meaningful only when it is applied consistently. And that it not just my opinion.
As long as we're doing a bit of a Q & A here, you could tell me your position on drugs such as nicotine and alcohol being legal for consumption.
I would add caffeine to the list. In my opinion these and all other mood altering substances should be legal.
People who use them are harming only themselves. So long as they don't harm anyone else in the process there is no problem.
People raise the "cost to society" argument implying that taxpayers foot the medical bill for drug and alcohol abusers and that impaired drivers cause accidents.
These are separate issues. No one is rightfully responsible for the medical care of a stranger and I gave up on the DUI issue when I realized it was impossible to rationalize jailing a person with a 0.80 BAC and letting a person with a 0.7999 BAC drive home from the sobriety checkpoint.
Regards
J.R.
And that is what creates a political party, many people applying principles consistently.
What appears to confuse you, is the idea that many people may share similar principles, that they may be willing to seek compromise with like-minded individuals and sequentially balance those principles in a manner which places not allowing those gathered together in a party with principles that stand in radical opposition of their own, to gain political offices, and as such, political power, ahead of all other principles, is in fact a principle in and of itself.
This does not confuse me at all.
When it comes to matters of principle compromise is not an option.
Assuming you consider yourself to be a small government conservative how can you logically justify Bush's modest tax cut and his desire to create a new multi billion dollar entitlement program?
Is this an acceptable compromise for you?
Government either: shrinks, remains constant, or grows.
The republicans are growing government. What I am confused by is the claim that it is better when republicans grow govt at a rate of 1X because the democrats will grow govt at a rate of 2X.
In the final analysis there is no practical difference.
Regards
J.R.
The problem is, that in a nation where everyone has an equal right to a voice in their government, government without compromise is tyranny.
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it." ~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life
That statement is only partially true. The part that is incorrect is the root of the problem.
For example, every year spending bills move through congress. All the lawgivers agree that the Defense Department needs money. They do not agree on the amount. A compromise on the amount is reached and the bill passes. That is an acceptable compromise.
National defense is a legitimate function of the federal government. By passing a DoD spending bill no principles (in this case the Constitutional limits of the government) were violated.
The problem is that the attitude that compromise is both normal and acceptable has been extended to issues where compromise is absolutely not normal or acceptable.
The Reagan quote refers to being happy with getting 75% of what he wanted. That is fine so long as every item in this statistic was conservative and Constitutional.
In actual practice the republican leadership at the national level gives us 75% of what the democrats want (more socialism) and call it a victory because the democrats did not get 25% of what they originally wanted.
That is not a winning strategy.
Regards
J.R.
Nice sounding paragraph, but no details as to what YOU consider issues where compromise is absolutely not normal or acceptable.
Mind you, others with equal rights to voice their opinions may think that your position is absolutely not normal or acceptable.
And they are Americans just like you and I.
"That is fine so long as every item in this statistic was conservative."
In other words, tyranny is fine as long as it is conducted in accordance to YOUR political ideology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.