bmags

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 09:55 PM) Dozens of cultures, as much as 90% of the Western Hemisphere population and a good percentage (40% was the estimate, I think) of the world population. But in like...1-2 generations of people! Can you imagine how that would affect someone?

It still blows me away from the book just how quickly disease destroyed a whole culture of people. It's just incomprehensible.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 09:06 PM) I guess my point is there seems to be quite a bit more interesting things happening right there in your post than in how Robert E Lee felt, at least to me, anyways. Well yeah, these aren't all big lies. But that's the precisely the point, they are small colorful lies that can be used as evidence for advancing certain insidious world views. The biggest lie here was addressed by strangesox...that native americans were just dumb hunter gatherers that came up against the european intellectual machine.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 07:47 PM) Well, it's no revelation at this point, and I don't mean to state the obvious...but Lincoln is portrayed as this great friend to the African American people...whereas he was simply much more concerned about keeping the Union together. He didn't want slavery spreading throughout all the new territories, but he didn't really have an issue with slavery continuing in the south for the forseeable future. The Emancipation Proclamation was certainly not issued because Lincoln was concerned about freeing the slaves, either...he was just tapping another available resource to him. This is not to say that Lincoln believed in slavery or the Southern way of life, but to say that he was some great advocate for the slaves simply because it was morally unacceptable is to not exactly be clear. Again, maybe it's a bit of an issue of the age of the learning audience, as you pointed out. I disagree. I think this is the push to whitewash the fact that the civil war was about slavery, first and foremost. Lincoln spoke before even officially becoming president that he wasn't goign to free slaves. The south seceded anyways. BUt not all slave states seceded. So he was forced to do a political balancing act to keep them in. IF there's ever been a man to not entirely judge by all of his words it was Abe Lincoln circa 60-65. Regardless of whether Lincoln stated he just wanted to keep the union together, it just so happens that by the end of the conflict, the president nominated by the anti-slavery party 5 years later resided over a country where slavery was now illegal, and whose party was now re-writing the constitution to give rights to those former slaves. So while he may not have been perfect from a civil rights perspective, he just so happened to be the leader during a dramatic transformation from a slave society, to a non one.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 07:20 PM) It wasn't like race relations were better in 1865 than 1965. The whole storyline of whites were fighting to free the slaves is kind of over dramatized. It wasn't like there were jobs or great opportunitities for blacks after the war. My students do find it strange that black men received sufferage before white women. Ta-nehisi Coates has probably the best line to put it better in perspective: The civil war is but one bloody chapter in the war against black people.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 07:18 PM) I think Lincoln's feelings towards slavery would be a bit more of an issue than Lee's, to be perfectly honest... What are you referring to?

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 06:45 PM) particpate in video reviews, deal with the extended travel due to expansion, or lead and control a clubhouse full of blogging and tweeting multi-millionaires with their superagents, entourages, I'm sure travel takes less time than when bus travel was common. As for video reviews and tweeting multi-millionaires, I'd bet video reviews are more efficient than whatever the hell scouting they had back then. ANd players back then were a bunch of alcoholics, probably not the easiest to manage either.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 06:44 PM) Really, what do you think is the most likely scenario here? Not sure, but I reject that they are sunk costs. Lots of things can change that could make those contracts more movable. I don't believe we'd ever move those whole contracts, but I do believe with luck you can make a move that removes enough to give you a lot more flexibility especially on a rebuilding team.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 06:26 PM) If they play better, heck even career average seasons, the need to move them lessens. After 2012, Peavy is all but gone, Rios has one more year, and Dunn has two. Maybe, but if this team is going in the direction we all think it is, I don't see the need to have players like that around.

Do you mind if I ask why you don't move?

Aware. But it's not guaranteed we need to pay off of those contracts. Those portions of that money could be moved. Somehow the blue jays were able to get out of vernon wells and alex rios. IF they play better, and a big market team needs a bat, there will be a sucker. We were the sucker most of the decade.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 07:00 PM) I can't imagine a team who would take any part of Dunn or Rios no matter what 2012 they have. That's fine, but that money isn't already spent, those commitments can at least be reduced if not outright eliminated.

They aren't sunk costs, you can rid yourself of them. You'll have to be creative as hell, but if we cloned kenny williams and made his clone the GM of another team, perhaps we'd find ourselves a bidder.

I think i'm more shocked that so many people seem to like the Man Up miller lite commercials.

It would be a lot easier to regulate these if they were legal.

aHA

But that's different than trying to make him seem more noble by saying he disagreed with slavery.

We were talking about 1491 and 1493 in the Dem thread. It takes about 5 pages into either book to be floored by how much more we know about these historical periods compared to when we were kids. But a few stories I've read of just untruths TAUGHT in school have really just bothered me. The one that doesn't bother me as much: • Back then, the they thought the world was flat, until Columbus proved it was round. I learned this was an inaccurate account probably in high school. But then in 1493 you learn about just how stupid Columbus actually was. He thought the world was pear shaped, with a nipple on the very top where the divine were chosen to live. But because of it's pear shape it was closer to China then realized. And when the King and Queen of Spain brought this theory to the scientists they laughed it off. The only reason he was able to make this voyage was the desperation to trade with China's riches, and Columbus's stupidity. But what an odd lie to continue to teach? No? The one that still bothers me: Robert E Lee didn't believe in slavery bought fought with the south because he believed in their cause. I only learned this was false last year, and it really angered me. The above lie surely tried to simplify things for a younger audience. This one tried to complicate it. But it just was false. And why would it be created? Anyway...you guys have more?

There's no way the restrictions of their contracts would hold up while the owners are refusing to honor their contracts and pay them.

I'm sorry, yes, I restored to factory settings. Haven't fooled around with it much, yet.

If the sox want more attendance, lower the ticket prices.

SHOW YOURSELVES, "SOME"

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Oct 12, 2011 -> 08:38 PM) I'm 2 hours 1-way on a good day. Between 2.5 and 3 on bad days. I think it's a pretty good reason. If I could find a place that's only 1 hour away, I'd be happy. Holy s***.

I stopped reading halfway up. But if the players truly found some investors for their league, and acted serious about it, the owners would cave in a heartbeat.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 12, 2011 -> 08:55 PM) That's awesome! Just be prepared for the outrageous housing costs! You're a smart kid...just move your ass out there with her and hit the pavement and you'll find something soon enough. Yeah, we don't know how long this is going to be. But, moving from all our friends and family to another city is going to be socially rough, so we'd much rather live in san fran then a cheaper alternative, unfortunately. I'll stay back for a month or two to find a job before moving. It'll help to now be focused. In what we thought would happen, i'm currently interviewing with a job in nyc. But they are based in Sf so I'm hoping they'll like me enough to find something for me.