Valjean said:

Geeman (#143),

Thanks for grabbing that.

Paul,

Sorry you didn’t have more of a response than “thanks for the reminder.” I do endeavor to avoid picking fights over nothing and your comments about San Diego’s military tributes seemed more than a bit cheeky. Of course it’s your blog and you can complain about anything you don’t like and ban whomever you wish. Might I suggest that your rather sensible wish to ban misogynist nitwits be based on their lack of maturity and respect? Called them out as “lazy, stupid, and … predictable”, in my humble estimation, catches a few too many fish in the net.

Wish you hadn’t posted that under a phony email address, or else I’d respond to you privately….

But OK, publicly: If you’re suggesting that my objections to the Padres’ military tributes “lack maturity and respect,” that’s fine. But to equate that with the puerile low-grade misogyny that sometimes gets tossed around this board is the very definition of apples vs. oranges. Many people — myself among them — have well-considered concerns about the camou uniforms. Among them: They unnecessarily glorify militarism; they equate make it all too easy to equate support for the military with patriotism; they are essentially a big wet kiss to the industry that supports the San Diego economy (imagine if the Tigers routinely wore automotive-based uniforms — well, maybe that’s not the best example, since the Detroit economy and American auto industry are both in the toilet, but I trust you get my point); there’s something unseemly about asking a team with so many foreign-born players to wear something that honors the American military (imagine if American players in, say, Venezuela were asked to do the same thing); and — last but certainly not least — it makes NO SENSE to dress a baseball team in a uniform that’s designed to make people HARD TO SEE.

If the way I gave voice to these concerns in today’s Ticker wasn’t to your liking, well, I think we’ll both sleep alright tonight. But if you think the concerns underlying today’s Ticker mention are petty or groundless or “lack[ing] maturity and respect,” I’m afraid you’re simply not living on the same planet as I am.

OK, thanks for writing back. I now agree this is apples and oranges, as you say. I was really taking your “lazy … predictable” language to heart — thus my comparison — but since you now note the women’s uni comments (which I’ve really not much seen) to be “puerile low-grade misogyny” that’s obviously another kettle of fish. I hope your writing about this has clarified your thinking as it has mine.

Sorry about the email, BTW — I actually thought it was still active, and used it for several blogs (thus the name). I’ll certainly use something more accessible in the future.

i’m new so go easy on me… but does the Nats “w” resemble a lowercase “e”? as in the first letter of Expos

The W is actually the same one worn by the last two incarnations of the Washington Senators. It also looks alot like the Walgreens logo. Anyway, it predates the existence of the Expos.

Oye. More Bush-bashing. Gee, you don’t get enough of that these days.

Yep, that was uncalled for and quite annoying to have to read more anti-Bush comments on the front page of a blog I read often.

Lot of respect points lost there Paul. Doubt it matters much, but you may have one less reader now.

Johnny Miller and Joe Morgan still instinctively kissed his ass, though…

Is the play-by-play team required to trash the President on national TV? What the hell did you expect? This is real life, not some fantasy world where internet people think anything goes.

Geeman (#143),

Thanks for grabbing that.

Paul,

Sorry you didn’t have more of a response than “thanks for the reminder.” I do endeavor to avoid picking fights over nothing and your comments about San Diego’s military tributes seemed more than a bit cheeky. Of course it’s your blog and you can complain about anything you don’t like and ban whomever you wish. Might I suggest that your rather sensible wish to ban misogynist nitwits be based on their lack of maturity and respect? Called them out as “lazy, stupid, and … predictable”, in my humble estimation, catches a few too many fish in the net.

Wish you hadn’t posted that under a phony email address, or else I’d respond to you privately….

But OK, publicly: If you’re suggesting that my objections to the Padres’ military tributes “lack maturity and respect,” that’s fine. But to equate that with the puerile low-grade misogyny that sometimes gets tossed around this board is the very definition of apples vs. oranges. Many people — myself among them — have well-considered concerns about the camou uniforms. Among them: They unnecessarily glorify militarism; they equate make it all too easy to equate support for the military with patriotism; they are essentially a big wet kiss to the industry that supports the San Diego economy (imagine if the Tigers routinely wore automotive-based uniforms — well, maybe that’s not the best example, since the Detroit economy and American auto industry are both in the toilet, but I trust you get my point); there’s something unseemly about asking a team with so many foreign-born players to wear something that honors the American military (imagine if American players in, say, Venezuela were asked to do the same thing); and — last but certainly not least — it makes NO SENSE to dress a baseball team in a uniform that’s designed to make people HARD TO SEE.

If the way I gave voice to these concerns in today’s Ticker wasn’t to your liking, well, I think we’ll both sleep alright tonight. But if you think the concerns underlying today’s Ticker mention are petty or groundless or “lack[ing] maturity and respect,” I’m afraid you’re simply not living on the same planet as I am.