|
May 26, 2012
Who is Shyster?
Monthly Archives
November, 2009
October, 2009 September, 2009 August, 2009 July, 2009 June, 2009 May, 2009 April, 2009 March, 2009 February, 2009 January, 2009 December, 2008 November, 2008
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (7)
Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (21) Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (5) The Waiting Game (10) Rules = Destiny (1) Shyster's Daily Circuit
Rob Neyer
AaronGleeman.com Joe Posnanski Blog Baseball Analysts Baseball Musings Cot's Baseball Contracts It IS About the Money Keith Law Cardboard Gods Baseball Think Factory MLB Trade Rumors Retrosheet Vegas Watch Way Back and Gone Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog The Biz of Baseball The Daily Fungo U.S.S. Mariner Braves Journal Scott Simkus The Common Man Jorge Says No! Baseball Over Here Fack Youk Wezen-Ball Chop-n-Change |
Baseball. Blogging. Whenever.Friday, May 22, 2009InfidelityAfter stirring the pot over at NBC with the Chief Wahoo stuff this morning, I exchanged a few emails with regular commenter Sara K. The abridged gist:Sara: You know, eventually, you will have to answer for the Tomahawk Chop. Tempting. To be clear, I have no intention of abandoning the Braves. We're like an old married couple. We've been together too long to change now, even if it isn't always pleasant. The Braves have learned to tolerate my snoring, and I have learned to tolerate their gas. Familiarity and routine are not the most inspiring reasons to stay together, but they are somewhat underrated and can be enough to carry the day long after the flame has died out. We bicker. We're passive-aggressive. We aren't always nice to one another. But at this point it would take an infidelity-level event to split us in two. The closest thing to that I can think of is hiring Dusty Baker or something, and unless I've fundamentally misjudged my significant other, that's just not going to happen. But like anyone in a blah marriage, my eye wanders from time to time. I imagine what my life would be like if I was -- dare I say it? -- unfaithful. What would attract me? With whom could I make it work? No harm in looking, right? It's not cheating just to look . . . Yankees: Never. Not even on a drunken fling. Red Sox: For all of the Boston-New York drama, they both look the same to the rest of the country, and honey, you're not as hot as you think you are. Orioles: They have more going for them than you might think. History. A nice ballpark. Enough years in the wilderness to where any residual cockiness has long been beaten out of them. If Peter Angelos were out of the picture, I could see myself swooping in. Blue Jays: Sorry, when I used to tell the other kids that I had a girlfriend from Canada, I always placed her in Montreal. Just sounded more exotic. And I like things natural -- no fake grass. Rays: I'd feel like I was robbing the cradle. I couldn't go for anyone without some history and experience, ya know? That rules out all of the 1993-present expansion teams. Tigers: Ah, the old flame. Sure, it's been a long time since we were together -- and God, were we young! -- but there are so many reasons why it could work again. Still, I'm hesitant to stir up old emotions. I can't escape the fact that I abandoned them once, and I can't help but think we'd spend all of our time together waiting for the other shoe to drop. I think it would work, but we'd have to promise to never bring up the past. White Sox: History. A great city. I could see us having fun together. Twins: The Twins are a home wrecker of a franchise (see, 1987 ALCS; 1991 WS) and I'll have nothing to do with them. Indians: Inconceivable unless they drop that . . .MAN . . .they insist on hanging around. Royals: Another possibility -- nice park, great history, very underrated city and some likeable players. But there's a lot of High profile competition for their affections, and I don't feel like having to prove myself all the time, so I'm leaning no. Rangers: They've always been a mess. They have a serious drug history and some questionable associations. It's only recently that they seem to be getting themselves together. I'd want them to prove to me that they can be healthy and stable for a long time before I'd be willing to commit. Angels, A's, Mariners: I could see it happening with any of these three, but our schedules are so different that I don't know when we'd be able to make time to see one another. Mets, Phillies, Marlins: There's too much negative history here for any of these three to be serious contenders. Besides, they're far too close to home. If it was a mere fling, there's a good chance we'd get caught. Even if I went with one of them following a breakup, seeing the ex 18 times a year would make things far too awkward. Pass. Nationals: some of the previous item's concerns apply, but they've always been less objectionable then the others, even back when they were using their maiden name. But when I look in the mirror, I know I can do better, and shacking up with these losers would be a serious blow to my self-esteem in the long run. Cubs: Another attractive contender in terms of history, location and all of the rest. Plus, hooking up with a team with a national superstation would be a nice symbolic F.U. to the Braves in that their superstation is what caused them to catch my eye in the first place. "You used to treat me right," I'd be saying to them. "I didn't leave you; you left me." Cardinals: Also high on the list. They're easy to resist now because I really hate their old man, but if he was out of the picture, there's no telling what we'd do. Wait, this is starting to sound like a film noir: "Tony, the reason I got the extra life insurance for you is so that I'd be protected. You WANT me to be protected, don't you? Now hurry up and sign the papers. We have a train to catch . . . ." Brewers, Reds, Pirates: All are just about equal in terms of attractiveness, but for different reasons. The Pirates may look bad on the surface, but they're nearby and they have a nice pad, and I know they'd give me their undivided attention. The Brewers really know how to party, so I'm sure I'd have a great time with them. People have been trying to fix me up with the Reds for years. I have my reservations, but sometimes when you hang around someone for so long they just start to grow on you and things just sort of happen, ya know? Astros: I liked them much more back in their wild youth. Now that they're all corporate and boring I have no attraction to them whatsoever. Diamondbacks, Rockies: See the Rays' comment. Dodgers, Giants: I'm almost ashamed to admit that I've had their number in my speed dial for a long time. We've hung out. We've done things together. But I swear, NOTHING HAPPENED. I'm not saying that nothing could EVER happen, though . . . UPDATE: I forgot the Padres! I guess that tells you just how high they rate with me. Again, let me be clear: I'm happily married, and no matter how bad things get, we're determined to make things work because we truly love each other. All I'm saying is that if -- IF -- something crazy were to ever happen, don't be surprised if I found myself drunk dialing the Tigers, Cardinals, Cubs, Giants, or Dodgers. And don't you DARE judge me. Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 3:54pm Comments
Wells said...
Excellent post. The Mariners, though, these days, may well be a little needy. They might call you in the middle night, demanding you say you love them, or at least like like them. Be careful. Posted 05/22 at 09:59 PM
Joseph H. said...
Come on home, Craig. The Braves played here, and we love to party. And you can pull out the Braves stuff every so often, and we won’t judge you - as long as you ditch the “A” on the hat for a much nicer “M”. - BrewerNation Posted 05/22 at 11:49 PM
Utpal said...
No no, Craig—a fan like you deserves to be a part of Cardinal Nation. Yes, TLR is a weirdo. But think of Oquendo…! Posted 05/23 at 12:33 AM
chris said...
The Tigers have the coolest uniforms, an extraordinary past and played in one of the three best ballparks ever. How you left them for the boring old Braves and their fair weather fans is beyond me. Posted 05/23 at 01:00 AM
Craig Calcaterra said...
I was 12, we moved away from Michigan to a place where I couldn’t watch or even listen to them anymore, I had no friends, and where Atlanta Braves baseball was all we could get on TV. If I was older or technology was better, sure, I could have hung on, but it wasn’t and I couldn’t. The story of my fan transition can be read here: http://shysterball.blogspot.com/2008/04/it-was-20-years-ago-today.html Posted 05/23 at 01:06 AM
stella said...
what exactly do you mean by beyond retarded? using that word is so offensive and demeaning to people with special needs. what I take away is that you are saying that something is just beyond the stupidest thing you could think of. You hurt my kid and many others with your use of that word. If that was your intention you succeeded. Posted 05/23 at 09:44 AM
Wooden U. Lykteneau said...
Stella - Grab another bottle of Purell. Someone as thin-skinned as you are is going to need it. Posted 05/23 at 09:48 AM
Craig Calcaterra said...
“what exactly do you mean by beyond retarded? using that word is so offensive and demeaning to people with special needs.” Since you ask the question and then immediately answer it, I suppose you don’t really care to know what I meant by that. You just want to assume that I had special needs people in mind. Which I didn’t, nor do most people who use the term in a casually, slangy way like I did. Look, I’ll admit that the word can be offensive when directed at the mentally disabled or people with special needs—and I’ll admit, my use of it here was not my finest rhetorical hour—but you and everyone else reading this knows that it’s not being deployed here to demean your kid or others like him or her. It’s being used in a generic sense to refer to people whose development—in this case development as a sophisticated fan base—is, in the most literal sense of the word, retarded. You can take offense if you’d like. There’s nothing I can do about that. But the elimination of words from the English lexicon—especially words that have other, legitimate meanings—is to err on the side of the over-sensitive. Posted 05/23 at 11:01 AM
Nick Whitman said...
We have enough bandwagon jumpers in Boston already, so I’m glad to hear that you’re not interested. Posted 05/23 at 01:11 PM
Sara K said...
Re: “retarded” Sorry for the somewhat off-topic-ness of this comment, but I am fascinated by this semantic issue… If “retarded” is off-limits as a descriptor for anything other than a very specifically defined condition, why so? On reflection, we might be wary of using “retarded” to refer to behaviors committed by people who are capable of higher thought, as it would then be denoting a purely negative thing, whereas legitimate retardation is neutral and beyond the control of those who qualify for the distinction. Retarded people would be unfairly subjected to a kind of reflected negativity. But on the other hand, do we also have a problem with the words “dumb” or “stupid” used in the same way? If Craig had called the Chop “beyond dumb,” would he be insulting dumb people? A dumb person can’t help being dumb, after all. The only difference I can see is that “dumb” or “stupid” lack a standardized diagnosis. If your IQ is under 70, you’re off limits, but if it’s between 70 and 85, you’re fair game? One possible conclusion is that we should refrain from all one-word adjectives for physical or mental limitations. Instead of “dumb,” we would say “lacks depth of thought” or “not well considered.” In fact, I would expect my composition students to use phrasing like that in their academic writing. But in conversation? In a journal? On a blog? My thinking is that context has to reign in informal settings. Please note - I am not saying that it is wrong to be uncomfortable with the use of the word “retarded.” I just wanted to explore some of the ramifications of it all…. Posted 05/23 at 11:04 PM
Dave Studeman said...
Back in the day, people with measurable limits in intelligence were labeled morons and idiots. I once opened up a clinical file of someone who was in an institution back in the 1940’s or so, and the first line was “Joe is an idiot.” Idiot was a clinical term, meant for someone whose IQ level was in a certain range. At the time, it was perfectly okay to write a descriptive sentence like that. As idiot and moron became used in everyday language, those in charge changed the terminology to retarded, and people became labeled severely retarded, or moderately retarded. Each label was clinical and corresponded to a specific range of IQ, and “idiot” and “moron” were dropped from medical and clinical files. I’m now out of the field, but my understanding is that they now say developmentally disabled, which is a real mouthful. The cause, again, has been the common use of a clinical word (“retarded”) to generally disparage people in a non-clinical way. When people use a clinical word like “retarded” to describe everyday people they don’t like, or who seem stupid, or whatever, it comes back to reflect on those who actually are clinically retarded. Eventually, it becomes a stigma and the powers that be feel they have to change the label. It’s a never-ending cycle. That’s why I personally try to refrain from ever using words like that. In the end, it hurts the people who actually have to live with the label. Posted 05/24 at 10:35 AM
Dave Studeman said...
By the way, that’s why I don’t have a problem with using “dumb” or “stupid.” People don’t officially have a designation of dumb or stupid, and hardly anyone thinks of themselves as dumb. But people who are “officially” retarded can’t avoid the stigma when other people use the word in a pejorative manner, even when not applied to them. Posted 05/24 at 10:53 AM
Bob Rittner said...
If you do not take the opportunity now to connect with the Rays you will rue it. She is all grown up combining now the wisdom of experience with the energy and exuberance of youth. You may think you know a lot, but she can teach you plenty, and you will be better and happier for it. There will be plenty of suitors at her door from now on, so if you are not afraid of the competition, now is the time to make your play. Posted 05/24 at 11:04 AM
Wade said...
GrammarBlog? Sounds more like GeneralizationBlog. And be careful not to step much further, or it’ll morph into DoublestandardBlog. Now go bang your drum, Chief GrammarWhoo, but be sure to retard the dynamics so as not to wake the neighbors. History101Blog… Posted 05/24 at 01:06 PM
Craig Calcaterra said...
Upon reflection I think I am more than persuaded by Dave’s argument. Like a lot of folks, I was resistant to an argument challenging my habits and assumptions without being receptive to other views. The clarity of a day or two to think about it makes it seem obvious to me that, even if the word isn’t deployed to mock those with special needs, it does work to equate the idiotic (Braves fans doing the chop) with those who are retarded in the clinical sense of the term. While I don’t think it rises to the level of capital offense, in hindsight I wish I hadn’t used the term and will refrain from doing so in the future. Thanks everyone. Posted 05/24 at 01:23 PM
Craig Calcaterra said...
ALL: See here for further words on the “retarded” issue: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/shysterball/article/rethinking-retarded/ Posted 05/24 at 02:11 PM
Ethan said...
Who cares. You can find something offensive almost everywhere if you look hard enough. People need to get over themselves Posted 05/24 at 03:26 PM
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. Next Post: Rethinking "retarded">> <<Previous Post: It's back to the drawing board for the Rays | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TC - that’s how I read Craig’s use of the word. As an all-purpose pejorative, “retarded” is insensitive, but used to denote a severe lack of intelligence, it seems reasonably descriptive. I’m all for hearing counter-arguments, of course…