The Druidic Candidate: Can California deal with a Druid for governor?

The Orange County Weekly ^ | March 28, 2002 | Victor D. Infante

[conserve-it]

I never read Ball Four......now I know why my life has no meaning.....I will get thee to a library NOW!!

[FormerLib]

Again I ask then, exactly how sould you have us to "prove" that a body of water had at one time been divided!

Then without any possibility of proving it, the original claim that I was responding to, that what the bible states is 100% accurate, is insupportable.

So, you posed a question that you know can't be proved and then you use that impossibility to state that the event could not have happened only because it can't be proved to you. Thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty, goat.

[BluesDuke]

I never read Ball Four......now I know why my life has no meaning.....I will get thee to a library NOW!!

The book received its final planned republication and update a year ago; it includes the original text of Ball Four, its 1980 and 1990 updates (chapters called "Ball Five" and "Ball Six"), and the final update chapter, in which Bouton talks very touchingly poignantly about his near-undoing when his youngest child (his daughter, Laurie) was killed in a New Jersey automobile accident at age 30. That accident, aside from driving Bouton into a soul-wrenching depression (when he snapped out of it, almost suddenly, his wife, he records, said she had felt throughout his depression as though he had walked out the door and was never coming back), actually triggered an event that led to the Yankees finally deciding bygones should be bygones and inviting him back to the House That Ruthless Rebuilt for an Old-Timer's Day (Bouton's oldest son, Michael, wrote an essay on the New York Times op-ed page, not long after his sister's death, saying it was time enough past for the Yankees to knock off whatever crap it was and let his father take his place among the old-timers - apparently, Bouton was unaware of it until his younger son called him the morning the piece was published) - of all Bouton's children, Laurie Bouton had been the one most defiant in her admiration for her father's past.

I spotted in a used book store a paperback copy of Bouton's second boook, I'm Glad You Didn't Take It Personally, in which he spoke of what he was put through as a result of Ball Four. It was only when I brought the little book home that I spotted something inside the front cover I hadn't noticed when looking at and buying the book: Jim Bouton's autograph, not inscribed to anyone in particular.

[Mark Bahner]

One good naked assertion deserves another:

I don't make naked assertions. I'm a scientist. Actually, an engineer...which is even better. ;-)

There is absolutely nothing that the Bible affirms that is even remotely mythical. What the Bible affirms is 100% true.

Well, I don't know what the Bible is "asserting" and what it's simply joking. But if the Bible is "asserting" that a boat was built on which 2 of ALL the animals on earth were kept, for 40 days and 40 nights, ~4000 year ago...that's simply nonsense.

And if you think it's anything BUT nonsense, I challenge you and your like-minded brethren to build such a boat, and get 2 of EVERY animal on earth, and put them on that boat, for 40 days and 40 nights. You couldn't come even CLOSE to building such a boat...even with today's technology. Plus, you would spend more than 1 lifetime (I guess that was easy for Noah, because he lived 400+ years? ;-)) even collecting all those animals. By the time you collected the last two polar bears, the first two giraffes would be dead.

The literal story of the Ark is absolute nonsense. Simple myth. Maybe some old guy and his family lived on a boat with a handful of animals, 4000 years ago. But the very idea of building a boat and putting two of ALL the animals on earth on that boat, for 40 days and 40 nights, 4000 years ago, is nonsens. Or a matter of faith. Take your pick.

[BibChr]

Thanks for a telling answer. Now I know that you are speaking out of sheer, unalloyed ignorance, unsullied by the meagerest attempt to investigate the alleged source of your "objection."

If you ever get serious, what you are scoffing at the edges of has been worked out, and there is nothing incredible about Noah and his ark whatever.

Engineer, eh? That's great. My two year old loves trains. (c;

Dan

[conserve-it]

Now you have gone and done it! Not only will I get the updated copy of Ball Four, I have a brand new excuse for ransacking my local used book store.

Thanks for the info on Bouton, and his family. I remember that when Ball Four came out, the New England press took great joy in trashing the book, and the man.That should have been enough to spark my interest right there, as the New York Times and Boston Globule never got anything right anyway. Bouton must have wanted you to have an autographed copy of his second book. Staying true to his nature, he took a ....ahem....somewhat circuitous route.

[BluesDuke]

Well, if he really did want me to have an autographed copy of I'm Glad You Didn't Take It Personally, he certainly chose a route only extraterrestrials, an angel from God, or a rather elaborately-endowed-for-intrigue agent could execute. What I remember most about the Ball Four contretemps was then-commissioner Bowie Kuhn trying to strong-arm Bouton into signing a statement saying he hadn't written it and it was all the doing of his fiendish editor, Leonard Shecter (who was himself a take-no-prisoners sports reporter, in a time when it wasn't nice to be one; he was also, as it happened, one of the key reporters who helped turn a fading, stumbling first baseman into Marvelous Marv Throneberry and helped the 1962 Mets become the loveable never-do-wells who humanised baseball against the smugger-than-thou Yankee crowds of the time). Shecter, by the way, wrote two remarkable books before his premature death (leukemia), The Jocks, which does as a journalist around many if not most pro sports what Ball Four did, in its inside-diary fashion, with baseball; and, Once Upon The Polo Grounds, a delightful recollection of the 1962-63 Mets.

The title of I'm Glad You Didn't Take It Personally was suggested, ironically, by legendary New York sports curmudgeon Dick Young. Young had called Bouton a "social leper" for writing Ball Four and, when Bouton ran into him subsequently, Young said hello and Bouton replied, "Hi, Dick. I didn't know you were talking to social lepers these days." Young apparently chuckled and answered, "Well, I'm glad you didn't take it personally."

And to this day, I side with Bouton in wondering, instead of screaming blue murder at him because he gave the first public exposure that Mickey Mantle was a little more than a social drinker (Like everybody, I ached along with Mantle as he suffered one of his numerous injuries. I wonder, though, if he'd have healed faster if he'd been sleeping more and loosening up with the boys at the bar less. I guess we'll never know), whether someone might have taken it as a wake-up call enough to try pounding a little sense into Mantle's stubborn Okie head. (Fat chance - if Casey Stengel couldn't teach him situational baseball, who on earth could have taught him it's hard to remember your children's school schedules when you're getting bombed at Toots and boinked by the bimbos from town to town?) Who knows? It might have meant Mantle living on without having to lose a liver and standing up before America saying, "You want a role model? Don't be like me."

[Mark Bahner]

Thanks for a telling answer. Now I know that you are speaking out of sheer, unalloyed ignorance, unsullied by the meagerest attempt to investigate the alleged source of your "objection."

What does this even mean? Are you attempting to tell me that the myth of Noah and the Ark does NOT involve a man and his family and friends building a ship 4000 years ago, and finding two of EVERY animal on earth, and putting it on that ship for 40 days and 40 nights, while the rain flooded and killed EVERY ANIMAL and EVERY PERSON who wasn't on that Ark? If you ever get serious, what you are scoffing at the edges of has been worked out, and there is nothing incredible about Noah and his ark whatever.

Unless you are saying that my knowledge of the Ark myth is faulty, that you don't find the Ark myth even slightly incredible shows that you are blinded to reason and to any shred of skepticism by your religious faith.

If my understanding of the Ark myth is correct, and you think it's NOT incredible, then why the hell don't you and your nutty friends get together and build another Ark, and put 2 of EVERY ANIMAL on earth into that Ark, for 40 days and 40 nights?

If you did that, THAT would be science. When Thor Heyerdahl did his Kon Tiki and Win Tiki voyages, THAT was science. (Something that *I* know about.) Science involves demonstrating something is possible. And the more bizarre the claim--and the Ark claim is pretty bizarre, unless I don't know the "real" myth--the MORE evidence is needed.

Noah and his Ark are myth. Not science. That's why scientists don't debate it.

[Mark Bahner]

Mark Bahner: when a Christian states, "The Christian religion has proved its claims..."

FormerLib: ...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. An important omission on your part.

The alleged resurrection of Christ is the only claim of truth in the Bible? Therefore, we can all (properly!) regard Noah and his Ark as mere myth?

And now that YOU brought the alleged resurrection into the debate (I was going to leave that one alone)...just how has the resurrection been proven?

[Mark Bahner]

First, kindly supply evidence for your existence.

None of us posting here really exist. What you read is actually coming from God. She's playing with your mind.

[Mark Bahner]

Believe what you think true and let be.

Look, I didn't start this. The person who started it was a Christian, who claimed that Christianity was The Truth, and Druidism merely mythology.

But while we're on the subject...I have NO beliefs. I'm merely persuaded into thinking various assertions are true, based on evidence. The evidence that the assertion that Noah and the Ark are mere mythology is overwhelming. That's why Noah and the Ark isn't taught in any science class.

[Mark Bahner]

I say again: The party which so proudly proclaims itself the Party of Principle has no damn business sanctioning or abetting that kind of corruption.

You can keep on saying it, until you're blue in the face. What you say is completely meritless, UNLESS, 1) you can point to someone OUTSIDE the donors to Harry Browne's campaign who was hurt by the alleged corruption, or 2) you yourself gave to Harry Browne's campaign.

As I'm fairly certain neither is the case, I really don't care what you say. OUR Party took absolutely ZERO taxpayer money in 2000. That action of principle was LEAD by Harry Browne, who refused $1 MILLION in taxpayer funding...even though he only had $2 million without that money. The Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party were the ONLY parties that refused taxpayer funds. I say that makes us principled.

You seem to be looking for a reason not to vote Libertarian. There are any number of reasons not to vote Libertarian. We are the ONLY party that will work to: 1) completely legalize all drugs, 2) abolish ALL federal government departments, agencies, and programs that are unconstitutional (which is probably nearly 90% of what the federal government does), 3) bring ALL troops back from foreign lands, except during times of war, 4) work to sell or give away ALL federal government lands, and many more controversial things. We will work to do that because THAT is our principle...that the government's ONLY legitimate function is to protect people from physical harm or fraud.

I mean, the Damnocrats had their Clinton. The Republican'ts had their Nixon.

Why didn't you write, "The Republican'ts have their G.W. Bush?" Do you not think that G.W. Bush has been MUCH more corrupt than Harry Browne???

G.W. Bush pledged during his campaign to veto Campaign Finance Reform as unconstitutional. Much more important, he swore an OATH (on the Bible) to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." He shamelessly and corruptly violated that oath. Why aren't you counting THAT?

But I was entirely unaware, as I cast my vote for Mr. Browne, of the matters I enunciated above (I did not learn about them until about two or three months following the election). Had I been aware of them, I would probably not have voted for him.

And you would have instead voted for a corpse? Now THAT would be a quite puzzling message to the man who was actually elected! (In reality, the man who was elected would probably never know you cast your vote for a corpse, because the reported election results don't usually include nutty votes.)

Once again: power corrupts. If you saw Harry Browne at the Judicial Watch debate on ethics in government, he said (as usual) one of the most perceptive and true statements. He said that power corrupts. So people in power are corrupt. Even if they are "good guys," the power corrupts them. (Just like in the #1 libertarian film of 2001, "Lord of the Rings.")

The SOLUTION is to give the people in power as little power as possible. To keep the power with The People. To quote Jefferson (not exactly, I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote, "Let no be heard of confidence in men, but let us bind them from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."

Harry Browne, more than ANY candidate, would have attempted to do that. There is NO doubt in my mind about that. (Howard Phillips wouldn't have been so awful in that regard...but he wouldn't have been as good as Harry Browne.)

You voted correctly. If you gave money to the Browne campaign, or can figure out how people who did NOT give money to his campaign were hurt by his ALLEGED actions, then you have a legitimate beef. But, speaking as a person who DID give money to both the Libertarian Party AND the Browne campaign, I'm still absolutely convinced that I did the right thing. We need to be aware of the problem, and attempt to make sure it doesn't happen again, but it's nothing like corruption that has already been evidenced from the G.W. Bush administration. (And I'm sure would have been evidenced in the Gore administration.)

[FreedomPoster]

This is exactly what America needs -- limited-government Druids. At least he's not a BIG-government Druid.

I'll take a limited government Druid over a big government RINO most any day.

[BibChr]

Okay, kindly telling you that you haven't any idea what you're talking about just provoked another burst of molten ignorance. Let me try another approach.

1. How much storage space would the Ark have required?
2. How much storage space did the Ark contain?
3. How long did Noah have to collect the animals?
4. What was the age and size of the animals Noah collected?
5. To gather two each of every species, how many animals would Noah have had to gather, and again of what size and age?
6. How did Noah get the animals?
7. What have tests of the seaworthiness of the Ark as described in the Bible (alone) disclosed?

Now, if you are a person interested in the facts, and this whole thing is about facts and evidence (as I think you're wanting people to believe), then you have a wonderful assignment. I'm sure it will take you a great deal of time, since I can tell (as I've tried to warn you) that you are coming from a position of pristine ignorance.

But if, on the other hand, this has nothing to do with evidence, if you just think that the history of the Ark is an easy target to make excuses for avoiding God and whatever personal ways you find Him and His word inconvenient, then I shall expect another blustering, billowing, contentless outburst.

Which is it to be?

Dan
Why I Am (Still) a Christian

[BibChr]

Oh, yes, I could have warned you: this whole discussion about evidence and all that you butted into seems to be well over your head. You'd probably better just stay out until you gain some knowledge. It would get embarassing (I should say, more embarassing) for you pretty quickly.

Dan

[PJ-Comix]

Funny, he doesn't look Druish.

[conserve-it]

I really enjoyed all the info on the Bouton "Chronicles"!. I will pick up both. Did we ever have a baseball commissioner worth a damn?
When you think of Mickey Mantle guzzling scotch, and chasing women, it almost pales in comparison to the antics of these current instant multimillionaire players of today; two and three kids out of wedlock, cocaine and gambling addictions, and the like. Oh well, baseball season beckons, and I still love the game. Heck, I wish I could still play myself. Maybe there is a over-the-hill league for 48 year olds, who can still hit a fastball, and can throw them out at home( with 2 relays).

[BluesDuke]

Did we ever have a baseball commissioner worth a damn?

Yes, we did. His name was A. Bartlett Giamatti. Unfortunately, he died before his first full year in office could be completed.

[BluesDuke]

What you say is completely meritless, UNLESS, 1) you can point to someone OUTSIDE the donors to Harry Browne's campaign who was hurt by the alleged corruption, or 2) you yourself gave to Harry Browne's campaign.

I hadn't realised until now that I had no right to complain about corruption in the Harry Browne campaigns or in his appropriation of Libertarian Party national office workers on their behalf when the party's nomination had yet to be decided finally, unless I had given money to either party or campaign. (For the record, I did not then and do not now have the means to make political donations, wish though I might. But the fact that you could say that only having made such donations gives one the right to speak against any corruption in any political party says manifestly more about you than ever it can about me.) And, for the record, I am looking for no excuse not to vote for anything or anyone. One need not be a member of the Libertarian Party to hold to libertarian sociopolitical philosophy or to vote according to its basic precepts, though I would acknowledge that finding candidates elsewhere who hold to libertarian sociopolitical philosophy is an arduous task.

I still maintain that voting for a first class corpse - which is, I admit, a somewhat puckish way of applying the protest vote (an idea I derived from Albert Jay Nock, who in turn drew it from Mark Twain; and, before you pounce on the former, be advised that Albert Jay Nock was enunciating with astonishing grace the antistatist philosophy long before thee or me were born) - is a far more respectable vote than voting for live men or women who a) will not uphold freedom, individual rights and sovereignty, and properly construed government (as opposed to the improperly consecrated State); or, b) preach a doctrine which includes the precept that power corrupts, while practising a campaign which demonstrates that the quest for power can and does corrupt just as profoundly.

[bluefish]

What cracks me up about the incredibly arrogant "scientists" (or "better" engineers) is that they fail to acknowledge that the profession (religion?) upon which they rely has been wrong so many times in so many ways it is laughable. Scientific / engineering failures, miscalculations and flawed observations have casued countless deaths and tremendous amounts of misery. Yet, they rely on and promote what they insist is an infallible "scientific method" with a fervor that can only be attrituted to a cult-like faith in their method for obtaining thier personal truth. The most ironic thing about the religion bashing atheist, as opposed to a more honest agnostic, is that they are extremely religious themselves, unable to recognize however because they are so blinded by their own brand of faith. They have no idea that their strict adherance to science is, from a philosophical or logical perspective, nothing more than another brand of religion.