It's tough to score runs with the team out the Jays are throwing out there. Some in the Box are clamouring for the Jays to bring up more Young players. I agree. I mean, Pocahontas was only 15 when she met John Smith and saved his life.

As much as I may agree with Delgado's stance, I can't imagine it's a good career move. All it will take is the wrong person to find this article and run with it, and Delgado's value on the open market will plummet.

Operation shutdown is over?

The article mentions Giles still being with the team. And Bell does not show up on the Pirates listing at dugoutdollars.com. I have to figure this is from the spring of 2003 (maybe even 2002?)

I just read the Ringolsby piece in yesterday's roundup about J.P. "patting himself on the back" and it triggered a long-standing question in my mind - Why is J.P. portrayed as a teflon G.M., as someone who is neither self-critical nor criticized by others? The media is, in my opinion, over-critical. Is it because of Moneyball? Is it because his approval rating among fans is very high? Because his job is so secure? Or because there's something about his charcter that makes him come across as someone unable to criticize himself - none of these seem both a) true and b) enough to lead to the media criticizing J.P. in this manner. I'm not asking if or why the media has an axe to grind with J.P. - that has been covered ad nauseum - but I have never really understand why, from the perspective of the Griffin's of the world, J.P. isn't just a bad G.M., but also a "teflon" G.M.

That article is from 2001, Jacko.

Cristian wins a case of Rustoleum (delivered in a sedan) and a picture of my cat:

Err, 2002.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1088806210136&call_pageid=968867503640&col=970081593064
The Star is carrying a wonderful article (COMN) on Carlos Delgados' sense of social justice as it relates to his Peurto Rican heritage. Carlos has never struck me as a guy with strong opinions one way or the other so I suppose this caught me a little off guard but it's wonderful to read about athletes who have a social conscience.

Unfortunately I'll have to sort through my print edition of the Star to figure out who the author is, s/he isn't listed in the by-line (but it could very well be a story from AP).

Maybe Delgado's dislike for U.S. policies will keep him with the Jays in Canada :) .

Lots of athletes have social conscience, but most newspapers won't print stories about that (unless the player does something truly exceptional) because it's not as good a story as "GREEDY PLAYERS AGAINST DESTROYING THEIR OWN UNION AND LETTING THE OWNERS DO WHATEVER THEY WANT".

Thanks for the cat Scott, it looks delicious. I did more research and it turns out John Smith was running around with Pocahontas when she was only 12. Hmmm...it seems kind of strange that Disney would create a children's cartoon centred around a pedophile. I guess Michael Moore should take note and make his next documentary praising pedophiles. I suppose then Disney wouldn't back out from distributing his film. So if you are keeping track of Disney's business decisions at home, it's pedophile films 1 - antiBush films 0.

If someone in the U.S. runs with this story (Delgado criticism of the war in Iraq) I think it pretty much makes him signing with a Canadian team a slam dunk. Being as there will be only one Canadian team next year, he'll remain a Jay

Do'h!!

If someone in the U.S. runs with this story (Delgado criticism of the war in Iraq) I think it pretty much makes him signing with a Canadian team a slam dunk. Being as there will be only one Canadian team next year, he'll remain a Jay

I thought the polls were showing a steady erosion of support for the war, no? (i.e. it may not be such an 'unpopular' stance by then).

Regardless, the only thing that will determine his market value at the end of the day is how much he can help a team and how much risk prospective suitors are willing to assume given the horrible year he's had (so far).

With that in mind, I think the Jays are experiencing perfect timing!

Nice choice of song. I was just thinking about it yesterday. And a baseball reference too!

Mike, I'm not sure that's true. The culture we're in obsesses over the good deeds of individuals while contrasting it to the way government provides services (essentially making a case for the third sector over publicly funded social system). What impressed me most was that I hadn't heard a whisper about this before and that it was coming out in a political context as opposed to a sob story where Delgado is billed as the country's savior.

Most teams would sign Genghis Kahn if they thought he could put up a .420 OBP/.570 SLG.

Mike, I'm not sure that's true. The culture we're in obsesses over the good deeds of individuals while contrasting it to the way government provides services (essentially making a case for the third sector over publicly funded social system).

In the Toronto Star?

Stories that portray athletes in a negative light will always be more popular in the media. See Bryant, Kobe. We're *not* a culture that is obsessed over good deeds. I kind of wish we were.

This story wasn't wholly about Delgado, it was the Star taking more shots at American foreign policy. Admittedly that's a little like shooting fish in a barrel, but it's still something that sells papers, particularly in Canada.

I have never really understand why, from the perspective of the Griffin's of the world, J.P. isn't just a bad G.M., but also a "teflon" G.M.

I agree. I remember when John Ferguson was hired as the Leafs GM and there was an article about how in his first couple of years there'd be a 'honeymoon period' for him with the media, during which they'd take it easy on him, just like Glen Grunwald and J.P. Ricciardi were currently enjoying. I forget who the writer was, but he must have started drinking early that day because I don't remember any honeymoon period for Ricciardi. What I remember is the knives being out from Day 1.

A lot of Americans disagree with the war and I don't think Delgado's opinion will matter when it comes to signing him (they might ask him not to comment further...). Maybe Texas, which was owned by George Bush, won't sign him but that was a given with Teixeira and Adrian Gonazalez on the way. Teams still pay jerks like Carl Everett, so why would a comment like that be any different? Not that I am comparing Delgado to Everett.

There are a million and one stories each year about a Leafs or Jays player who chips in for a charitable cause (see: Cujo's Kids, Doc's Box or the Easter Kids' skate party at the ACC). Granted the Star doesn't cover them all but I can recall vividly their coverage of Vince Carter opening up a new basketball court in the Jane-Finch corridor.

Does anyone have any information about Russ Adams and possible snake bites?

What isn't mentioned in the article is how many other players also stay in the dugout - whether out of protest or apathy. While it may not affect his signing, if people start paying attention it might get him in hot water with the team. Chris Jackson/Mahmood Abdul-Rauf refused to stand for the national anthem a few years ago and more recently that high school kid refused to face the flag; both were subject to rounds of boos and I can't remember if Abdul-Rauf was suspended or not.

There's a lot of fine reading out there today, and a Neil Young tune in my head. Thanks, Scott. I enjoyed both Griffin and Ganter, on different aspects of real life for players who shuttle between Triple-A and the majors. Good stuff.

Regardless of his politics, the Star's agenda, or any backlash he may incur, the end of that Citizen Carlos piece makes me admire the man all the more:

Delgado can't make such pain vanish with his money. He instead focuses on the personal ways he can make a difference, like visiting a school, or hiring a helicopter to fly him from Aguadilla to Vieques each January for a special Three Kings Day celebration. At this year's event, he handed out gifts to children and ran a baseball clinic.

"You'll need millions and millions of dollars to clean Vieques up," Delgado said. "So, we try to make (the money) as effective as we can. We make it work for kids. I can't clean up Vieques by myself. It's going to take a lot of people."

Regardless of his politics, the Star's agenda, or any backlash he may incur, the end of that Citizen Carlos piece makes me admire the man all the more

Me too. He's actually always struck me as a guy who truly cares, and this confirms it even more.

I respect Carlos' opinion but he really is blind to the big picture. Having enmity for the U.S. won't solve any of his island's problems. Its sad that hes taken an anti-American stance over a few bad perosnal experiences.

I respect Carlos' opinion but he really is blind to the big picture. Having enmity for the U.S. won't solve any of his island's problems. Its sad that hes taken an anti-American stance over a few bad perosnal experiences.

Blind to the big picture? Anti-American?

The only negative comments attributed to Delgado in that article pertain specifically to the war.

There are many patriotic Americans who also believe that the war in Iraq was misguided, wasteful and tragic. Are they anti-American? Or do they simply have a different vision for the United States?

I don't think it's fair to say that Delgado has emnity towards the U.S. on the basis of that article.

Also, minimizing his perspective as "a few bad personal experiences" is pretty uncool IMHO.

As soon as I read his reference to WMDs, it had a more political bias bordering on the typical "Bash America" rhetoric. He could have just left as "I despise war on all levels & that bloodshed is counerproductive & primitive." Carlos has the right to say anything he wants but to back it up with old tired WMD banter is shocking to me. C'mon Carlos come up something better. I love you as a ballplayer but lets keep the mind-numbing rhetoric to "professionals" like Michael Moore.

He could have just left as "I despise war on all levels & that bloodshed is counerproductive & primitive."

Maybe that's not how he feels. He was specific in saying that THIS war was stupid, and it's hardly tired to bring up WMD given how they were used as a justification for war (until, of course, they were nowhere to be found, at which point it became a liberation effort).

I'm sorry if this thread has become completely hi-jacked, but I do think this is important.

You talk about mind-numbing rhetoric, then yammer about "Bash America" and "old tired WMD banter"?

Pot, I have a telephone message from Kettle. He says "you are soooooo black".

Craig, you've unfairly named Kettle as the offending party. It is in fact Pot that taunts Kettle in that manner.

Pot was framed.

In any event, Bill Cosby would weep. More black-on-black violence is the last thing he wants.

Getting back to Carlos...

I really think that his opinions are not particulatly outlandish. They appear to be shared by the vast (and I mean vast) majority of educated people outside the U.S. - and as others here have pointed out, a very large number of people inside the U.S. I don't think they will pose any problems for him in looking for a new contract with an American team, nor do I suspect Carlos would decline to seek a contract with an American team.

It wouldn't surprise me to see many other Puerto Rican players with a similar enmity for the U.S. Puerto Rico's history vis-a-vis the U.S. is long and complicated; Puerto Rico has both benefitted enormously and suffered substantial damage and humiliation from its relationship with its colonial master. Like any colonial relationship, it's complicated... and like any colonial relationship, it looks mighty different from the colonizer's point of view than it does from that of the colonized.

LOL. Funny, guys.

Also, I should point out that Carlos Delgado is an American citizen.

If Carlos could at least come up with a novel idea to back up his convictions for being anti-war I would have given him a free pass.
Something like:
(1) The U.S. invaded Iraq to utilize it as a base of operations to stabilize its economic and security interests in the Middle East & in the U.S. mainland.

The W.M.D. blather is totally baseless and unoriginal.The U.S. was directly involved in the creation of Iraq's biological/chemical weapon programs to counter the Ayatollah and his regime.Thus, their existence is of no surprise. Almost all these W.M.Ds were shipped to Syria , Jordan & the Sudan en masse right before the war. The satellite images preluding the invasions show thousands of trucks to and from Syria dropping off mass quantities of metal. It will all come out when the smoke clears.

Look the U.S. is far from altruistic. I just expected a better answer from Carlos since I hold him in such high regard. He is a very special human being & I don't know many athletes who would be as generous and caring as he is.

To be fair to Carlos, we have no idea what he might have said that was cut out of the piece. Like Billy Beane, he's not the author. :)

The Batter's Box turned into Crossfire for a few moments. I personally apologize for the descent into the jaded netherworld of geo-politics.

BTW Anybody have an idea where Carlos lives in the offseason?? Puerto Rico must be the obvious answer but he must have a home in the states too. Maybe Florida.

The provocative Delgado feature, by Geoff Baker, is finally credited on the Web site. Along with Baker's surprisingly optimistic game report -- "putting a little faith in the (Jays) might not be a bad idea tonight" -- it occupies the entire front page of the sports section. There's almost three full pages of baseball in the Star today, with no snide remarks and no negative headlines. What a pleasant surprise.

My point, I am sure will be very unpopular so I wont debate, Carlos seems bent on showing his point, but not coming out for God Bless America, which has nothing to do with the war, but he sure doesnt mind taking his check to the bank from the same country, yeah yeah he gets paid by Rogers, but I am sure the deal is American dollars. I dont mean to be offensive, but turning your back to the flag is cowardly to me, that flag gave you the very freedom to make such a statement.

off with political commentary, have a good day :)

Let me attempt to realign the proverbial "train" back to the tracks with some baseball talk.

In the agnst-ridden locale known as Boston, everyone's favorite redheaded stepchild Dan Shaughnessy is banging the drum for Nomar's immediate departure:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/07/03/damaged_goods_deal_garciaparra/

My apologies for bringing back the politics, but does anyone else think this might lead to friction in the Jays' clubhouse? I seem to remember Gregg Zaun, in particular, being sort of super-patriotic. Granted, that was over the Dixie Chicks, which annoyed me a little, but I could see how being outspokenly anti-war might lead to problems...

I take the Delgado comments as a sign that North America is normalizing finally. For a very long time now many people and intitutions have not been easily able to express their freely held political opinion because there was a small and dangerous element that was out to punish and hurt folks for anything but blind loyalty to "God and Country".

Normalizing relative to what? It's not like there's never any consequences for people who express their political thoughts in Europe.

How many more leftists (not psycho "leftists" like Hitler or Pol Pot, but socially-conscious moderate ones like Martin Luther King Jr.) have been assassinated as compared to those on the right?

For a very long time now many people and intitutions have not been easily able to express their freely held political opinion because there was a small and dangerous element that was out to punish and hurt folks for anything but blind loyalty to "God and Country".

That's the biggest load of crap I've ever seen on this board. I'd like to see some examples of this repression.

http://sport.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=351752003
Re Zaun and the DCs:

...The conflict in Iraq has already made one indelible change to the sporting landscape of Florida. No longer will the Dixie Chicks be used to walnut whip crowds into a frenzy at Major League Baseball spring training games, after several players declared a fatwa against country music’s pin-up princesses.

Baseballers are not noted for their liberalism. Apple-pie loving, truck-driving souls, they have never provided a fertile recruiting ground for the Democratic Party. So when Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Chicks, decided to take a pop at the president for organising a hoe-down in the Middle East, hitters and pitchers took collective umbrage.

"There’s a lot of idiot liberals in the entertainment industry," said the Astros’ Gregg Zaun, whose cousin is a US Air Force pilot stationed in the Gulf. "For her to bad-mouth our policy and our president, and then to make it even more personal by saying she’s embarrassed he’s a Texan, I don’t think I’ll ever buy another Dixie Chicks record as long as I live."

And when Florida Marlins pitchers Doug Bochtler and Braden Looper heard a Chicks number blaring out over the loudspeaker before their game, their judgment was immediate.

"It irritates me the way people come out against the war, like the Dixie Chicks," Looper said. "It got under my skin. I’ll throw their CD out."

Bochtler chipped in: "I was like: ‘No, no, no, no. Shut that down,’ I said."

COMN for full story.

Hey, who says there's no such thing as cosmic justice? Tanyon Sturze just blew the game for the Yankees. Yeehaw.

Some interesting tidbits about Puerto Rico I discovered in an old newsletter regarding MLB (very strang). Some I knew and some I didn't (Especially the attempted assassinations of Truman!!!):

"Puerto Ricans can serve in the American military. However, they cannot vote in national elections. Their congressional delegate in Washington cannot vote either. Still, Puerto Rico has close ties, especially with New York. That city has a big Puerto Rican population.

Puerto Rico means "rich port" in Spanish. Spain gave up the island in eighteen-ninety-eight after the Spanish-American War. The United States declared Puerto Rico an American territory. Then, in nineteen-fifty-two, Puerto Rico became a commonwealth with a constitution that provides for self-government.

Puerto Ricans have voted three times to remain a commonwealth. But some want their island to become the fifty-first American state. Still others want their own nation. In the nineteen-fifties, Puerto Rican nationalists tried to kill President Harry Truman and later wounded five congressmen. Three years ago, Puerto Rico elected its first female governor, Sila Calderon. During her campaign, she promised to end more than sixty years of American Navy exercises on the nearby island of Vieques.

Many Puerto Ricans said these artillery and bombing exercises hurt economic development. They also worried for the environment -- and their lives. The cancer rate among the people who live on Vieques is higher than the Puerto Rican average.

In nineteen-ninety-nine, two bombs missed their targets. A security guard was killed. Protests followed.

Puerto Ricans have succeeded in their goal for Vieques. The Navy plans to leave the island in May. Clean-up is expected to take years. But something new has come to Vieques. A big hotel opened last month. It is expected to become the top employer on the island."

How many more leftists (not psycho "leftists" like Hitler or Pol Pot, but socially-conscious moderate ones like Martin Luther King Jr.) have been assassinated as compared to those on the right?

Tough to say. It's actually probably about equal. Of the four presidents who were assassinated, three were Republicans: Lincoln, McKinley and Garfield. Then there was the attempted Reagan assassination.

As for Fortuyn, I don't think he fits well on the right-left axis. He held very liberal positions on a host of issues.

Mike M, I interpreted Lefty to mean that the American media has returned to its "normal" role, questioning authority. It is true that the American media has for a number of years, but particularly after 9/11, become progressively more passive, reporting what newsmakers say rather than asking probing questions and pointing out contradictions. Whether the change in the media's role or attitude was due to fear or simply due to a decline in journalistic standards is open to serious debate.

Robert said that "Most teams would sign Genghis Kahn if they thought he could put up a .420 OBP/.570 SLG." That's true, even if ol' Genghis wasn't a "we" ballplayer.

I think you mean Genghis Khan. Genghis Kahn was Madeline Kahn's father and more of an all-field no-hit type.

Robert said that "Most teams would sign Genghis Kahn if they thought he could put up a .420 OBP/.570 SLG." That's true, even if ol' Genghis wasn't a "we" ballplayer.

Man that statement sure gets the imagination going. Coversely,with the use of a time machine, Raul Mondesi could have led the golden horde to dominance over Asia and Eastern Europe. .

I vehemently disagree with Delgado's position on Iraq, but what the hell, I only expect him to play passable first base and put up some top-notch slugging numbers. The only discussion I want to have with him regarding missing weapons of mass destruction is with respect to his pathetic power numbers this year.

Look, his form of protest is both symbolic and innocuous. If it makes him feel better to do it, more power to him. His position would be less compromised, admittedly, if he weren't taking 18 million U.S. dollars for his troubles, but none of us are lily-white pure.

Man that statement sure gets the imagination going. Coversely,with the use of a time machine, Raul Mondesi could have led the golden horde to dominance over Asia and Eastern Europe.

Unlikely. He would have made it as far as Moscow before getting bored and demanding a trade to Rome.

His position would be less compromised, admittedly, if he weren't taking 18 million U.S. dollars for his troubles

Why?

His position would be less compromised, admittedly, if he weren't taking 18 million U.S. dollars for his troubles

Why?

Because I think the fact that American society (he may play slightly fewer than half his games in Canada, but without the other 28 U.S. teams, he'd be making CFL wages) has compensated him beyond the wildest dreams of most people on this planet simply because he entertains them requires him at a certain level to be respectful of those people and their points of view, even where he disagrees with them. No doubt, people are going to be very angry when they read this column, and they are going to resent their contribution to his wages.

But look, I said that I have no argument with his silent protest. If I argued with every person who disagreed with me over the war, I'd never get anything done!

Lucas, that's good.

Raul Mondesi could have led the golden horde to dominance over Asia and Eastern Europe. .

Now that I would pay good money to see.

Lindsay,

You seem to be equating opposition to the war in Iraq with anti-Americanism. I don't think Delgado is anti-American (he may be, but it is not apparent from any comments made here or elsewhere that I've seen).

Delgado is not making $18 million dollars because the U.S. is occupying Iraq; he's making $18 million because of the success of welfare-state capitalism on this continent (I'm using welfare in a broad sense - in the sense that public goods like universal access to education and industrial infrastructure have allowed us to create a very wealthy society). The fact that US forces are present in so many parts of the world has pretty much zero to do with how much baseball players make (really it's unionism that has allowed that to happen).

Many Americans decry U.S. Foreign Policy, but I'm sure they would be appalled if you suggested to them that doing so is un-American.

Of the four presidents who were assassinated, three were Republicans: Lincoln, McKinley and Garfield. Then there was the attempted Reagan assassination.

Since we're just working out our political urges on this thread, I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that "Republican" means something very different in 1981 than it does in 1865.

See Thurmond, Strom.

Oh, and the above Iraq debate is really hard to skim with "Craig B" debating "Chris B".

My stance: The Anti This War Now Left

That's the biggest load of crap I've ever seen on this board. I'd like to see some examples of this repression.

DJ, Micheal Moore was forced to come to Canada to get his film distributed. Twice, I might add.

What about Arar's great year long vacation courtesy of our two Governments. How about the countless Americans languising in jails today.

The means of the State and corporate interests can be a powerful tool in keeping a lid on desent. And what about the job the media did on all of us. Could they have done a better job in conveying the events? Could the publishers have made a difference in allowing free and open debate? Could they have dug a little deeper without the fear that corporate America would not have punished them through their advert revenue?

Robert,

Clearly the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq has nothing to do with Delgado's salary, and I don't think I implied that it did. (That can only be true if you believe the War is about OIL!)

And certainly he's entitled to hold any views he likes on U.S. foreign policy, and I defended that right, and the right to express those views, in each of my posts.

However, the only point I was trying to make, in response to a question from Cristian, was that as a non-U.S. citizen who works in a U.S. industry and accepts a great many U.S. dollars for his labours in entertaining a great many Americans, he should expect that his views, and his form of protest, will engender a certain amount of protest themselves. And that is as it should be, in a society that values free expression.

The means of the State and corporate interests can be a powerful tool in keeping a lid on desent.

And America is different from any other country in the world (left or right) how exactly?

We live in a country where an investigative journalist (Stephen Williams) who reported on two horrific murders may start a lengthy jail term right around the same time one of the murderers is released.

I'm not saying Canada isn't a great country. It's the best in the world. But unfortunately stuff like this is all too common everywhere.

Do you have a source on the Michael Moore "forced to come to Canada" thing. I've heard that a few times, but never seen a source.

Since we're just working out our political urges on this thread, I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that "Republican" means something very different in 1981 than it does in 1865.

While this is undoubtedly true for any political party, I'd love to read the revisionist history that describes Garfield or McKinley as left-wing. McKinley was probably the hawkish 20th century U.S. president.

Lindsay,

Yes I agree that Delgado should expect a backlash. My point is there is nothing contradictory or hypocritical about earning $18 million and making the statements he's made, as you seem to imply when you wrote:

His position would be less compromised, admittedly, if he weren't taking 18 million U.S. dollars for his troubles.

FWIW, it was implied above that Delgado is a US citizen; I thought Puerto Ricans are Americans, anyway - maybe I'm wrong on that count.

Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens and hold U.S. passports, but they are not allowed to vote for the President and they not allowed a voting member who sits in either branch of the legislature.

Robert,

'Compromised' was probably not the right word, since I didn't mean to suggest that he was being hypocritical. I just think a lot of people will roll their eyes at this, and dismiss his comments because he's a professional athlete whose remarks get press only because he happens to make a lot of money.

And there are also other people who take the "God Bless America" stuff very seriously, and who will respond that if America is wrong to be in Iraq, God's blessings are especially required. The song is not a war anthem; it belongs to all people regardless of their views on the current conflict. And their point of view, and not an unfair one, is that if U.S. money is good enough for Delgado, he should at least stand respectfully when a song honouring that country is being played. After all, he's not being asked to support the war.

Also, I should have not been so careless in my description of Puerto Ricans as non-U.S. citizens. They have a sort of quasi-citizenship status that defies easy categorization.

I know that many secular Americans don't like "God Bless America". What would you suggest they do?

I'd love to read the revisionist history that describes Garfield or McKinley as left-wing. McKinley was probably the hawkish 20th century U.S. president.

OK: Garfield ran against Hancock. Hancock was a famous civil war general, and so it's not like you can argue for Garfield on grounds of hawkishness.

Hancock was a controversial reconstruction general, controversial for promoting policies that favoured whites over blacks, which the hard, umm, left portions of the Republican Party opposed.

The main difference in platforms that election was tariffs - broadly, Hancock was anti-tariff (a free-trader, we might now say), while Garfield was pro-tariff. Ummm...

As for McKinley, well, I'd dispute that hawkishness = right-wing. Or if it does, I'd point you towards the long history of Republican-Party isolationism, today represented by the indubitably right wing Pat Buchanan.

Vietnam, Korea, WWII, and WWI were all prosecuted primarily by Democrats.

More broadly, I think the point is that our stanrads or 'right' and 'left' just don't apply to the time before, at the earliest, the 1930s. Wilson, for example, seems like a liberal on a lot of issues, until you read about his opinion of black people. No one here of ANY political affiliation would have anything to do with the guy if he was around today.

Right vs. Left on race is only configured anything like today after about 1960.

Right vs. Left on the welfare state only begins to matter once anyone thought to have a welfare state. (Franklin wouldn't have backed Social Security, I don't think, but he was one of the furthest-left founding fathers. Today at least the leftmost 65% of people support Social Security.)

Likewise protectionism versus free trade and hawkishness versus isolationism flop all over the map, sometimes begin notionally 'liberal', sometimes notionally 'conservative', depending on the configuration of the day.

Layered on top of that is a lot of flopping around of parties - the Democrats were probably the 'left' option under Andrew Jackson, probably the 'right' option in the civil war, probably the 'left' option again until TR, who just messed the whole thing up, and so on.

Saying that 'Republicans in the 19th century tended to be assassinated, so conservatives are often assassinated' is just gibberish.

For "stanrads or" above, read "standards of"

Saying that 'Republicans in the 19th century tended to be assassinated, so conservatives are often assassinated' is just gibberish.

That wasn't at all my point. My point was that assassination attempts are not isolated to any particular political viewpoint and aren't just isolated to the JFKs and MLKs of the world, as shown by assassinations against 19th century Republicans and by the attempted assassinations of Reagan and Gerald Ford. The point I was trying to get across is that trying keep score is an exercise in futility.

I know that many secular Americans don't like "God Bless America". What would you suggest they do?

I have some suggestions, but I doubt very much that you'd appreciate them!

As I've said repeatedly, if he doesn't want to stand outside the dugout when the song is played, more power to him. It doesn't affect me, it doesn't bother me, and it doesn't change my opinion of Delgado at all, since I have no opinion on him that extends beyond his ballplaying abilities. But if someone actually is aggravated by his stand, more power to them as well.

Lindsay,

With every post you've been backing from your initial position.

His position would be less compromised, admittedly, if he weren't taking 18 million U.S. dollars for his troubles

Note that this is your initial opinion. I don't agree with it and responded with a why? You responded with:

I think the fact that American society...has compensated [Delgado] beyond the wildest dreams of most people on this planet...requires him...to be respectful of those people and their points of view

Now, you are arguing that Delgado is required to respect others' opinions. Personally, I don't think that he's required to do anything other than hit a ball. However, the initial argument you put forth was that Delgado's salary compromises his views. You've reframed the initial argument. After prodding from others you then switch your argument once again:

the only point I was trying to make...was that [Delgaodo] should expect that his views...and protest will engender a certain amount of protest themselves. And that is as it should be, in a society that values free expression.

Let's see. First you backed away from suggesting that Delgado's views are compromised by his salary. Now you are backing from your second argument that Delgado is required, by virtue of his salary, to respect others' views. Your new argument is that Delgado has to expect that others will not like his views. Notice how you have completely eliminated yourself from the mob that may dislike Delgado's stance. You no longer disagree with Delgado but instead state that others will. The only view you get behind yourself is some nonsense about valuing free expression. That's great Lindsay but the value of free expression was never an issue. Here's your last comment:

It doesn't affect me, it doesn't bother me, and it doesn't change my opinion of Delgado at all, since I have no opinion on him that extends beyond his ballplaying abilities. But if someone actually is aggravated by his stand, more power to them as well.

You started with a strong opinion about Delgado. Namely that his salary compromises his views about American foreign policy. On this it seems your mind has been completely changed because now you state you "no opinions about him that extend beyond his ballplaying abilities." Isn't this in line with the view of those who questioned you in the first place?

Cristian,

With respect, you are telescoping the positions I've been taking. I think I've been consistent throughout, though I have been refining my position throughout the course of the conversation with you and Robert in response to the fair questions that you've both raised. The course of the discussion has meandered, but I've not moved from my original position, apart from backing off the word 'compromised' because it was taken to imply something that I didn't really mean.

However, otherwise I've not strayed from my position, which you are free to like or dislike. I never argued that Delgado was not entitled to a position on the matter simply because he made a lot of money, as your selective quoting of one of my above posts suggests. I said that as he is richly compensated by the American public for what he does, he in return should be expected to demonstrate some respect for that public, just as you and I are expected to demonstrate some respect for the clients or customers that keep us in whatever line of business we are in. That argument would hold true if he was making the major league minimum, as well, but there's an additional spotlight on him simply because he's one of the best paid players in the game.

That his refusal to be part of the seventh-inning stretch ceremony is a silent form of protest against the war is his right; that many people, pro- or anti-war, might reasonably be offended since it is perfectly reasonable to oppose the war and respect, and support, the sentiments of the song, is a consequence that can't be avoided. There will be people who will say, in effect: "I don't care what your position on the war is. We are singing this song to honour our men and women in harm's way and to ask for help in getting through this troubled time in our nation's history. We are not singing it in support of wars of imperialism. You have been richly rewarded by the people of this country. We ask in return that you politely and respectfully stand at attention while we sing this song." In that respect, I think his salary, or more appropriately, his profession, somewhat compromises his position not on the war, but in the manner in which he chooses to signal that protest.

As for your last comment: You started with a strong opinion about Delgado. Namely that his salary compromises his views about American foreign policy. On this it seems your mind has been completely changed because now you state you "no opinions about him that extend beyond his ballplaying abilities." Isn't this in line with the view of those who questioned you in the first place?

I can probably do not better than quote right back to you my first post on this subject, which is perfectly consistent with my last post:

I vehemently disagree with Delgado's position on Iraq, but what the hell, I only expect him to play passable first base and put up some top-notch slugging numbers. The only discussion I want to have with him regarding missing weapons of mass destruction is with respect to his pathetic power numbers this year.

So my strong opinion amounts to the fact that he's stunk out the joint this year. So you don't accuse me of backing off that, I'll repeat it: Delgado has been very poor this year.

If I've not made myself clear, that's my fault, but I think you've been misreading my above posts.

Lindsay, you wrote:

There will be people who will say, in effect: "I don't care what your position on the war is. We are singing this song to honour our men and women in harm's way and to ask for help in getting through this troubled time in our nation's history. We are not singing it in support of wars of imperialism. You have been richly rewarded by the people of this country. We ask in return that you politely and respectfully stand at attention while we sing this song." In that respect, I think his salary, or more appropriately, his profession, somewhat compromises his position not on the war, but in the manner in which he chooses to signal that protest.

Based on the segment I've highlighted, it seems you agree with the people you have paraphrased. Might I suggest that that is not the only possible interpretation of the significance of "God Bless America" sung during the seventh inning? By someone who is perhaps not fully American (as you imply WRT Puerto Ricans), the song may indeed be viewed (with some justification) as a defence of the foreign policy of the USA. I don't want to get into a debate about the meaning of the lyrics, but we seem to agree that (at least in part) the song is in this case intended to supply moral support for American troops abroad. I don't undertstand how you can completely separate this from US foreign policy (it's the policy that has put the troops in harms way).

If someone views the war in Iraq as a war of imperialism, then how can they not at the same time view the song as at least indirect support for imperialism, since it has been admitted that the song is sung in support of the instruments (i.e. soldiers) of that war? Thus, to someone with this view, standing respectfully at attention is the equivalent of standing at attention to an anthem for a war one is deeply against.

My view is - the personal feelings of Delgado, when faced with such a song is more important than the hurt feelings supporters of the war might have because someone isn't standing respectfully.

Let us note that "God Bless America" isn't the national anthem of the USA. It is a song that is used on occassions where something MORE patriotic than the national anthem is thought to be appropriate. It is perhaps difficult for Americans to see how this song might offend the feelings of non-Americans.

Then I think Delgado is exhibiting a certain immaturity. Lots of Americans who oppose the war nevertheless stand at attention when the song is played, and think their own silent thoughts about what it means to them - that America's misadventure might soon end, that the troops return home safely, that they will not further tarnish America's reputation abroad by their actions, that the country's president and foreign policy will change come November. Virtually every domestic opponent of the war claims to support the troops, so the fact that the song is sung partially in honour of those troops does not make it an imperial war anthem. Now, if Delgado does not support the troops (whatever that means exactly), then I concede the point.

The country is a democracy, not a fascist state. The song doesn't mean what George Bush or Bud Selig thinks it means, it means what the listener thinks it means. If Greg Zaun wants to channel patriotic thoughts when it is played, good for him. If a fan wants to think about the troops from his or hometown in Iraq or Afghanistan (which was the "foreign war of occupation" that had been launched when this ritual was initiated), good for him. If Delgado wants to think about how if America were to be truly blessed, it would remove its troops from Iraq, good for him. If he really does think it an imperial war anthem, I feel sorry for him, because he's letting other people's interpretations of the song interfere with his own.

My only point was that you and I are in a different position from Delgado. If we choose not to stand during the song, that's our right and that's as far as it goes, since we don't have any obligation to the other fans in the stands. I happen to think, and I suspect most people on this board also think, that professional athletes have certain obligations to the fans. When Delgado chooses not to stand, he risks offending the people who've made the life he enjoys possible. That's all. If he wants to start every interview with a statement in support of the Iraqi people, that's fine. If he wants to make public service announcements for John Kerry, that's fine. I think not standing for a song or an anthem cuts across political lines, however, and risks being seen as gratuitously offensive.

I'm not American, so I'm not taking a personal position on this matter. Out of curiousity, however, I'd be interested in what the views of Bauxites would be if Delgado declared himself opposed to some provocative fact of Canadian life - last week's election results, the baby seal hunt, the deplorable state of Canada's native reserves - and refused to stand for O Canada. I suspect there'd be less tolerance for that stand, but that's merely a guess.

Here is where the rub comes in. The Canadian and American national anthems represent the countries; "God Bless America" is something extra that fuels the fire of American patriotism, which is frequently transformed into American jingoism (as seen from abroad). I believe this is a view shared by many many non-Americans. The thinking is - "You already have a song that represents your country, this other thing just goes over the top."

"God Bless America" is frequently trotted out in "support of the troops". Thus it is tied to American militarism. This is the aspect of the song that many outside the country find distasteful. I'm sure that Americans care not one wit how foreigners regard that song and the singing of it. But suddenly, anybody who works or lives in the USA must be careful to not hurting the feeling of patriotic Americans? This smacks of a certain kind of coercive group think, in my opinion.

I'd agree that if Delgado refused to stand for the American national anthem, it would be the equivalent of player not standing for the Canadian national anthem. That, however, is not what we are talking about. "God Bless America" has a less neutral cultural significance than the "Star-Spangled Banner", and as I said before, I'm sure many Americans find it distasteful.

And I think Delgado has every right to speak out about the Canada's foreign policy if he so chooses. I doubt anyone but a few cranks would be offended. Delgado is technically a U.S. citizen so I believe he has a full right to speak about their foreign and domestic policies, as does every citizen of the country.

Lindsay,

I never argued that Delgado was not entitled to a position on the matter simply because he made a lot of money, as your selective quoting of one of my above posts suggests.

Now you've begun to defend yourself from arguments that weren't even directed at you. I never suggested that your argument was that Delgado isn't entitled to his opinion. And no amount of 'selective quoting' of anything I've written can show it. If I, as you suggest, am guilty of misreading posts then all I can say is that I'm not the only one.

You are right that I missed your first post though. I apologize. I only stumbled into this argument when you made your 'compromise' post. Your first post (which I've now read) is consistent with your last post. However, this does not mean that your arguments have been consistent throughout the discussion. You did meander into making some posts that contradicted yourself, which is what I pointed out in my previous post and is probably what incurred others to toss in their two cents.

My personal opinion on GBA (or the anthem for that matter) is this: whether you stand or do not, you are making your position known. To me, standing for the song means that you are complicit with what the song represents. I don't buy that standing is only a show of respect. That's why I personally wouldn't stand for the song, why I was furious when it was played last year at Skydome, and why I'm proud when people like Delgado take a stand (by not standing as it were).