Sports fans = Prison inmates? Bill James thinks so.

Bill James writes a very interesting piece on Grantland about how the deterioration of fan conduct at baseball games and prisons in America seems to have happened around roughly the same time. A great tidbit that stood out:

"That's the thing about regulating conduct; there is always some conduct that doesn't get policed. When baseball effectively prohibited its players from defending their good names with physical threats and small weapons, this in essence required the players to put up with verbal abuse from fat, pimply guys whom they could have very easily beaten the grits out of. People say things in public all the time now for which, if you had said them 40 years ago, somebody would have kicked your ass. We've regulated the ass-kicking, so the rudeness is out of control, and we wind up with Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh doing political commentary that falls in the same general class as drunken, shirtless bellowing.

I used to know both of those guys. Limbaugh used to work for the Royals. I didn't really know him, but I bumped into him a couple of times. Olbermann used to be a broadcaster; funny, funny guy. They're good guys; I wouldn't have any trouble playing poker with either one of them, but I'm not sure what moron gave either one of them a microphone.

Which is an unfair thing to say; they have complex political philosophies, both of them, and they have microphones because somebody figured out that you could make a lot of money by combining a sophisticated political philosophy with oral flatulence. But I was reminiscing about the good old days, when men were men and high school girls didn't have nipple rings, and you knew who the heavyweight boxing champion of the world was — even the high school girls did — because there was only one at a time and he was a big deal."

He goes on about a number of topics that don't seem related at first but overall it's a good piece worth reading.

More on the Mets and they NYPD/FDNY/PAPD caps.

Thanks to my friend Neil Parekh for pointing out this blog post by Keith Olbermann at MLB.com. Keith gets hammered for being a partisan political talking head but don't forget he did start out as a sportscaster and was one of the faces of ESPN in its early days. One point he made in response to a tweet he received really drives the point home on why the Mets should have worn those hats:

"As an aside, I should note that I actually got a tweet from an idiot who wondered why I thought wearing the NYPD/NYFD/PAPD/EMS caps was somehow “patriotic.” It never crossed my mind. It has nothing to do with patriotism. 343 firefighters and paramedics died that day. 23 New York policemen did. And 47 from the Port Authority Police. This is about remembering them – and acknowledging what all those who survived did for this city and the wounds they still have. For me, as the grandson of a New York fireman, and the descendant of several others, and many NYPD and regional PD, this is something deeper than patriotism."

Finally, hard evidence … but about whom?

For some reason, the birth certificate issue is even being analyzed down under in Australia. A professor at the University of Western Australia astutely picks up on the reason why seemingly intelligent people plug into ideologies that are deeply flawed:

"It has been a long-standing source of puzzlement among outside observers how the Soviet Union and its satellites could bumble along for so long without reforming their sclerotic economies. Didn’t they notice that the shelves were empty? That Western workers enjoyed a far more comfortable life-style than their Soviet brethren?

No, the Soviet ideologues didn't notice and they wouldn't have seen anything even if someone had forced them to look.

Because ideology trumps facts.

And it doesn't matter what the ideology is, whether socialism, any brand of fundamentalist religion, or free-market extremism. The psychological literature shows quite consistently that a threat to one's worldview is more than likely met by a dismissal of facts, however strong the evidence. Indeed, the stronger the evidence, the greater the threat—and hence the greater the denial."

This reminds me of a lot of the things I’ve heard from conservatives about President Obama and progressive policies, such as:

• "You may have doubts about trickle down, but we do have empirical evidence that socialism and communism do not work."
• "Obama is a socialist. Everything he does and says (when he is talking to his supporters) are excellent examples of socialism."
• "This perpetual welfare we have started with endless unemployment is just giving the incentive not to work for a much smaller pool of people than would be employed in a strong economy."
• "[W]ho passed the health care bill against the wishes of the majority? Who wants to put people in jail if they choose not to have health insurance? Which party is it that wants to regulate everything that exists in America?"

Just to be clear, I'm not implying it's conservative issue alone. There are many liberals that hold ideologically rigid views as well. It's one of the reasons I wasn't disappointed when Keith Olbermann's show went off the air.

Now someone might think that I'm glutton for punishment for debating issues with people this ideologically rigid. The reality is I don't mind because not only does it keep me honest but I agree with these kinds of people more times than they realize. Not with the statements above because although I don't mind strong opinions as long as the person knows they're opinions and not passing them off as facts, like they are here.

It never hurts to look into the opposing point of view, under the assumption that they are the ones that are right, to find something that you may agree with. One thing I've learned is my position tends to stay closer to where it originally was but becomes a bit more nuanced than before.

As far as whether or not Obama is a socialist or communist or fascist or jihadist, etc., forget what everyone else says and just go to the source. It's best way to really find out what makes a person tick, regardless of whether or not you like them.

Is Stephen Colbert really a conservative?

As reported on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last Friday, May 1st, a study was conducted at The Ohio State University where individuals were shown clips of The Colbert Report and asked if they thought he was a liberal or conservative. Apparently many conservatives just didn't get it:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy