30.Jun.2015 Steve Fenk Denies Me Credentialed Media

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.7/5 (6 votes cast)

Our policy is that we do not credential independent bloggers, websites, etc. You will find that is the case league-wide for the most part. We have turned down others before  as well.  Thank you for your interest. sf

I find this to be BS. It makes sense to some extent, so as not to encourage a person to startup a blog and then get credentials, but I have been doing this since 2008. It’s a well-established site, and it’s been 7 years before I even asked.

What do you guys think?

Jump to Bottom
  • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I’d like to know what exclusions are when he says “for the most part”
    Sounds like certain blogs are granted media credentials then?

    I get it, it’s much easier to accommodate for media from a few select sources vs trying to keep up with every blog that pops up (not a huge problem at OSU, but at a bigger school like USC that could be an issue)

    As more and more people get their news from Blogs, vs news sites, they may be forced to re-think this policy. It’s not all that unusual though. Reminds me of a blazer blog, Blazersedge.com. It’s not a stretch to think they’re more influential than the Oregonian, Portland Tribune, etc, when it comes to local coverage of the Blazers, but they also have written about the Blazers denying them any press credentials.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +4 (from 8 votes)

      I’d like to know the actual reason. We don’t get that from his response.

      I already acknowledge to him that I agree, Joe Blow could startup a blog just to get credentialed, and he should be denied, but a well-established blog (7 years now, 4 million hits, and before I deleted google analytics the numbers were even bigger) is the media. I didn’t ask for a pass until 7 years into writing the blog, so clearly my motivation was not to create a blog just to get credentialed.

      I simply might want to go to events and write reports for my readers now that Riley is gone. Yet, I am being denied because I am “independent”? I guess I’ll put myself up for sale now — if anyone from the mainstream media wants to buy the site so I can become credentialed write me!

      • That Other Guy says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Did you mention all those stats to him?

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

          Yes I did. And I even concurred that not every blog should get access, but there should be some type of litmus test. For example, if someone starts a blog and a day later asks for a pass, clearly their motivation [or at least part of it] was to start a site simply to get a pass. But if someone writes a blog 7 years before asking, clearly their motivation was not a media pass. I don’t see how both situations are treated the same. I even told him I’d be willing to sit outside the media box since he did say they have issues with space.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

            Agree with both sides. There should be a litmus test for independents. In fact, they have one already, that which distinguishes a private, for-profit “news” source versus a private… um… okay… so they don’t have one.

            In fact, if you were published on conglomerate/amateur garbage sites like HuffPo or SBNation or Fansided would you get a pass? Does it have to be a “full spectrum” news source like Willamette Week? We know independent, single-focus bloggers who have franchises (Yahoo!) can get one without issue.

            I guess it’s a deeper issue than I thought when I started this reply.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

            Before Yahoo purchased Rivals, wasn’t Beaverblitz run by Angie Machado? Was that considered independent at the time? Because from what I remember she had a media pass.

    • whatever says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      > I’d like to know what exclusions are when he says “for the most part”

      Think sites like Grantland. Not even Blazers Edge gets credentials for the Blazers and they get far more traffic than this site.

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

    Steve’s follow up response:

    Anybody can develop a website and call it media. So, the policy we have here (also the league) is that you have to be affiliated with a national news/sports organization such as the Rivals/Yahoo relationship. Bleacherreport is another good example and one that was denied league-wide until it associated with Turner Sports.

    Otherwise, I would have to let anybody and everybody into what is already a woefully inadequate press areas that we have at almost all of our facilities.

    And I agree with denying anybody who starts a blog, but it should be based on a litmus test, like I described above. Bleacher Report was well established and should have been granted access. AB is well-established and should be granted access. These types of sites are not the same as Joe Blow starting up an irrelevant blog — I agree those types should be denied.

    • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      It’s offensive that Bleacher report is granted access over your blog. Do they bring ANYTHING to the table, other than clickbait?

      • beavbutter says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

        they provide a soap free beaver report

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)

          No. They do not. They don’t even provide a Beaver report. Butthey do provide plenty of adware/spyware/spamware script to your hard drive. So there’s that.

          Try again.

        • scotty says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Yet another reason they aren’t as good 😉

        • scotty says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          So after reading all this, is the gist that while the rules are poorly-defined, they’re at least applied evenly and all is reasonably well?

      • That Other Guy says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        They did hire a couple major writers to cover NBA a few years ago to gain some credibility. They are quickily becoming a major player in sports media.

        • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          I was thinking more along the lines of Oregon State content. It’s true, they are growing in their quality of NBA content, especially since the Turner acquisition.

          • That Other Guy says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Oh yeah they don’t have any content for OSU. Mostly just pull stories from Oregonian and others papers.

    • wannabeav says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      how about that OneClick sports syndicates you?

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        That is true, too. And they have done that for years.

    • Casey says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      I would ask them for a written policy with clear definitions of terms such as “independent” or “national news organization.” How many owners does it take to be independent? Do they make other organizations disclose their ownership? What does it take to be considered national? I bet AngryBeavs has readers all over the USA.

      AngryBeavs is one of the best sites this diehard Beaver fan has found in years. Not getting a press credential is total BS.

      By the way, LLCs formed in New Mexico do not have to disclose the names of their owners. Perhaps you should create a New Mexico LLC.

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

    I’m going to be deleting the troll comments in this thread, because this issue is serious to me.

    Does anyone have actual input on this matter? I.e. is anyone here up to date on the current state of bloggers being members of the press? Does a University have ultimate discretion, or if a blogger meets certain criteria are they media? Etc. I’m trying to inform myself.

    Also, can anyone confirm if Angie Machado was independent when Blitz first came out? If so, then this implies inconsistency in Fenk’s remark that they do not give passes unless the writer is affiliated with a national news outlet. From what I remember, when blitz first came out it was a network of independent writers.

    • progressivebeav progressivebeav says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Rivals was purchased by Yahoo in 2007. Blitz has always been affiliated with at least Rivals from what i can recall. Looks like mamma joined in 2006: https://oregonstate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=85684

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        What I’d like to know is if in those early years pre-2007 if Blitz writers had media passes. After Yahoo purchased them they fit Fenk’s definition of a National Media outlet.

        Was Rivals.com considered a national media outlet? I thought it was just a collection of independent reporters/recruiting guys and a very small operation.

        • progressivebeav progressivebeav says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          In 2000 they “employed close to 200 people, operated a network of 700 independent sports Web sites, filed for a $100 million initial public offering and even sponsored the Hula Bowl in Hawaii.”

          source: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Venture-Capital-Rivals-com-is-dead-long-live-1053237.php

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            So you’re saying they’re the equivalent of Jim McIngvale?

            That’s a bar low enough to be buried six feet under.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)

            Yes, but 2000 was the height of the internet bubble. AB would have been worth 100 mil then lol.

            But you write the key word, INDEPENDENT sports sites. That’s what I thought…

        • jason says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          yea but they could always have changed their policy sincee the time angie was an independent. now that media has changed/increased outlets beyond osu’s capabilities

  • Trev11 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    I don’t think @BeavRecruiting is the platform to be complaining about being denied a media credential. Recruits, etc. follow that account now.

    Why can you use your twitter handle, angry?

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I don’t know why the last question arose. But agreed. The recruiting twitter should only be for recruiting… and not because of who reads it… just because it is what it is.

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

    Steve wrote this:

    I just explained the reasoning. I used the term “for the most part” as to not group all other schools into one, although I probably didn’t even need to use that term as it is pretty uniform league and nation-wide.

    So, if you want another reason here you go:

    I find this to be BS. It makes sense to some extent, so as not to encourage a person to startup a blog and then get credentials, but I have been doing this since 2008. It’s a well-established site, and it’s been 7 years before I even asked.
    What do you guys think?

    I’m not sure what he is getting at here. Because I agree with him that not all bloggers are media? Or because I called his decision BS?

    I ask that question:

    Steve, by pasting what I wrote, are you showing I concur? Yes, I do concur that not everyone who begins a blog should get credentials. And I can see why you would deny most. But I don’t see why you would deny all, specifically sites that are well-established before they even ask for the pass. The fact that I waited 7 years to even ask for a pass shows that I didn’t start it to become credentialed.

    We will definitely be having a discussion about it. My issue is not the policy, but applying it uniformly and without a litmus test. In my case, 7 years plus hundreds of stories is a strong litmus test that I did not start a blog just to ask for credentials.

    I’d also be willing to sit outside the press area. This isn’t about the prestige of being in the press. It’s that I live far away and getting to events would be a significant expense, so some type of pass to get into the event would help greatly. Otherwise the financial aspect of it makes it so I can’t go and report. This is the problem, not the prestige of a media pass. Is there any other type of pass I can be granted to allow me entrance?

    So I even ask for a general pass, just so I can get up there and report when time allows. He writes back:

    I know very little of your website, which is why I have looked at it today. I have heard others speak to it, however, and not very positively. Sorry […], my stance has not changed, nor will it. Credentials are under much tighter scrutiny than ever before for a variety of reasons. If you feel you need to blast me on your website that’s your business.

    So this begins to sound strange. Why does he mention people don’t speak positively about it? Is that a factor in his decision? I asked that question with no response. And would anyone reasonable call this “blasting” him? I’m looking for [consistent] answers and just stating facts (i.e. he denied me a pass. This is fact, not “blasting”). I asked for a written policy outlining OSU’s stance on attaining a pass, but have yet to receive that.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -4 (from 6 votes)

      Simply posting what he says is not blasting him. Disagreeing is not blasting him. It is a matter of open sourced information and gaining perspective from all sides. Even the Christian mythology claims there can be no light without darkness, to forward a counter-argument to what I perceive to be his claim.

      That is a strange response. My interactions with him have never led me to believe him being so unprofessional in the least.

      Bliley lives on?

      note: You all know I don’t like that term and never signed on, but there is something weird about how unprofessional SF’s response is. It’s cult-like, and I don’t like cults… especially ones that lead to cults of personality… or are derived from such. There will be answers to this question.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

        To me it implies that because the site dissents (“I have heard others speak to it, however, and not very positively”), he wants nothing to do with it. The first amendment was enacted specifically to protect dissent, because if everyone agreed, there’s be no need to write an amendment protecting freedom of speech. This is the creepy part. His lack of response since then is interesting. I don’t see myself letting this die, because it seems unjust. Especially now that we know Rivals was once independent writers. If those writers received passes, then the reason he is giving me is not accurate. Or if it is, it should be in a written policy showing changes over time. Maybe back then they granted passes and that’s changed. Fine, show me that. I asked him to just show me OSU’s stance in writing.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          Nobody should be arguing the 1A aspect. That’s an obvious breach by his response. That he slipped in that way brings to question his professional ability, one I would not have questioned before now.

          You should not have erased the troll’s comments either. I see that as a similar breach. His banality aside, he provided the sole voice against. And now it seems it was not in the extreme and just stupid as hell.

          Besides, it’s fun to be right about something before you even type a response to something so dumb they would ban you in a Texas textbook… when it’s this time of year.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

            Normally I wouldn’t delete the troll, but I said explicitly this issue is important to me, and that he was getting in the way. If he wanted to argue about it he had every right to go into the general thread and do that, but here he was cluttering things up. If the topic wasn’t at the heart of what I stand for, then I wouldn’t care, but this possibly gets into 1A issues and possibly favoritism of one independent blogger over another, which are pretty serious issues. I want real information here not some troll complaining about soap. If he wants to do that, bring it to the general thread. I even gave a warning, yet he continued to do it here.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            But his arguments were the central defense against yours. That they were moronic and un-American doesn’t mean they’re clutter. It just means he was as stupid as he is in saying anything he says.

            I trust the readers to understand what he thinks he’s saying, even if he doesn’t.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

            He could have just done it in the general thread. It’s kind of like how people have freedom of speech, but necessarily to yell “fire” in a theater that isn’t burning. I just asked him not to do that HERE.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            It’s what they do. You could ask that we not play with their weak minds so as to lead them on. But even that is weird. What he had to say was direct and corresponding (now we know) to the subject at hand.

            It also GIVES credence to your argument that this is all they could muster against yours. Leaving those traces of stupidity gives you the counterbalance to carry on. Suffice it to say I hate censorship of any kind.

            Note: I am not now nor have I ever been a troll of myself. My posts all have the same gravatar since Jeff Perry thought it was funny to pretend he was me, as very weak minds are wont to do.

            Note 2: I have not had access to angry’s site since 2009 (?) when our esteemed 3b coach decided not to send the runner in the b8 against UCLA. My understandable (probably overstated) reaction to that call took away my privileges. Take away the foul language sprinkled in that outburst, and I think you would all agree with what was said. But the foul language did exist, and I accept that it was more than unnecessary.

            Note 3: If you think the recruiting twitter is separate from this site, you are wrong. I think it should just be for recruiting. But the devil’s advocate in me says that supression of any kind needs to be told to prospective recruits. They should go somewhere else, like Stanford (that’s a huge huge joke, if you didn’t know) if they think we’re a fandom in schism.

            Bottom line: There never has been a schism. There are those of us who expect better, and there are those of us who think the status quo is better. I will be the first to say that those who, with me, lived through the 28 years can go fuck themselves. I don’t want to hear that my AD employs people who can’t sell OSU… and excuses on top of excuses for why they don’t. If you don’t want to sell OSU, then get the fuck out of Corvallis. You don’t know how good you got it now. You will never know how good you had it. Corvallis is the ultimate destination of anyone college-associated. It is a haven of intelligence despite this little hiccup. Go find your destiny at some Bel Air party if you really need to do so. I don’t care about you now or later if you do. But you don’t care about me now or later either. And neither will they… despite what they tell you.

          • cj cj says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Well said…sort of. I agree that censorship in any form is not a good thing.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            edit: sorry… I didn’t mean “ban.” I meant enforced.

        • mckalk says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          I kind of find it interesting that he did keep responding to you for awhile. If I didn’t know your website/blog (like he states) and I had a set policy, I would have politely told you no and left it at that. He seemed to want to have a back and forth, until you got more specific with him. I think he’s heard of you and wanted to see where it was going to go. His assumption about being bashed was weird also, there are so many misconceptions about this site. It almost seems like he wants to grant you access, but got word from others that it’s a “no” under any circumstance.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            That was my initial take. I don’t suppose that someone whose job is to have all communications under control to just fuck up so badly. I wonder if he was even in control of his email. It matters not. It was such a monumental fuck up that Wall Street CEOs would be getting billion dollar bail-outs (with reservations, of course) in order to pay off their golden parachutes.

            But we all know how outlandish that sounds.

  • Timber! says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    Every interaction/inquiry I can remember having with the athletic department staff (non-support staff) (except Stansbury years ago who was very gracious) has left me with a sense of overprotection and defensiveness, including Fenk who seems to have an ego problem and has been there too long. It would be good for the dept. if he had a career change.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Whoa! Career changes called for here do not work.

      Or they do.

      Steve is actually a good guy. He has to protect every single word that comes from him. That’s his job. That’s why this unprofessional response is completely weird… to me. He’s one person who can’t afford to have a bad day in communication. That he has now had one hugely bad one says to me that he doesn’t have any control over the subject and can’t answer the question at hand with any logic. I give him a pass this one time.

      But he should measure his words from here on out. I would suggest he direct all correspondence from angry to counsel.

      • Timber! says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        stag
        nant

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          How so? This subject was not surprising to begin. But it is now disturbing because the very person charged with communication for the AD at the university I graduated from and give money to has made a huge blunder.

          To continue that blunder beyond what he has inferred would be more imprudent than the original blunder.

          Do you disagree?

          • Timber! says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            nevermind, we must be talking about different subjects, I’m going to move along, best.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Then what the hell are you talking about?

            Stagnant?

            It’s extremely viable at this point. And it is now being discussed other than on this “independent blog/website.” This upsets me. I did not wake up thinking we were Nikegon. Even a, “That’s just policy. We’ll review it and get back to you,” would have sufficed.

            But no. OSU had to go all dark side.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I mean, he’s asking for a torched earth response.

            Torched earth from an “independent blog/website” should have zero consequence. So I guess there’s really nothing to worry about from here on out on my part. I can fully expect my university can overcome what they ask for so blatantly and borderline illegally… if borderline.

  • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    The guy who does the Purdue page with SB nation got credentials. Here he makes reference to it:
    http://www.hammerandrails.com/2011/7/27/2297097/38-days-to-purdue-football-mike-lee-and-akeem-hunt

    I suppose being part of a larger network is helpful.

  • beaverkman beaverkman says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    How refreshing would it be to have a voice that doesn’t go by the party line? This feels like an old boys network protecting their own. The Oregonian, Rivals, GT all pander to athletic department for their access. The question then becomes do you really want to be apart of that group? They would probably try to influence the information. So it doesn’t sound like something you would want to be apart of. Then on the other hand why wouldn’t they want you in there in order to try to “reel” you in?

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I’m with you.

      Still, it’s an institution I thought I knew until now. It’s an institution I was proud to say was open and honest. It’s an institution that followed its mission and was open to all.

      And now we see that, “Fuck you! You suck,” is what we were supporting all along.

      Really? I want to use a word more apt than daft. But I might get censored for it.

      • alohabeav says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +11 (from 11 votes)

        A few points I’d like to make.
        1. Your concern about being censored is completely unfounded. From the asinine comments you have posted on this blog it appears you will never be censored.
        2. And that is because you apparently can not censor yourself.
        3. Perhaps if there were fewer political rants on this blog a professional sports information director might consider this blog a “worthy” sports blog.
        4. Relax Jack, take a full breath or two try not to go off the deep end once again.
        5. And no I don’t lay around in my trailer in Chattanooga reading Texas schoolbooks. Mahalo

        • wannabeav says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

          in the spirit of constructive and critical thinking, aloha is right on with point #3

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)

            I’m not sure about that. I saw political rants on blitz when I used to post there, and Fenk didn’t list that as a reason. He said he didn’t even read the site. So I doubt fewer political comments would sway him either way.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            I’m sure we could pull a couple threads off that site that would make white separatists cringe at how racist the language might be.

            It’s a red herring.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

            In the spirit of discussion… red herring.

            You come up with a unifying vision of my political posts on this site…. not of those supposedly opposing me… those of mine only.

            You might come up with something fairly ambiguous… if you were honest. This site knows none of the depths of a truly political discussion… not a sniffle on a cool day pretending to be the precursor to a cold. That has to be one the dumbest things ever said here. You can find me out there making political statements. You can also find me out there making economic statements, which those on the political blogs mistake for politics. And they’re just as moronic for doing so as anyone here would be for thinking anything on this site resembles political statement.

            But even if it did, it has not one thing to do with this argument… not a bit in any way. In fact, one could argue that the Oregonian might be more so a political entity, ambiguously owned or controlled, opined rather than newsworthy.

            Oh… but I red herring too.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)

          1. I have been censored on this very thread, and I have complained about it. So your very ignorant comment about this site compounds your stupidity of the very subject you thought you were talking about. This is censorship because of statements made by someone I thought would never be so unprofessional and, frankly, un-American. And it is deeply upsetting.
          2. I don’t fucking have to censor my goddamn self you fucking mental midget of a pile of worm dung.
          3. red herring
          4. red herring
          5. a’ako hupo… ahu ka ala ala. But you already know that.

          • alohabeav says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

            Remember Jack, inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale. We don’t want you to hurt yourself again. Relax, calm down and think of your quiet place.

            Sorry folks Jack is off and gone again. My bad, but it’s so easy to get him spun up. Poor thing thinks he’s got something everyone wants to hear. And remember he has all those followers on tweety.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Huh?

            Am I having a baby now? Followers? Huh?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Oh… secret to getting twitter followers… follow others. I have not one tweet or retweet or favorite or whatever on my account. I do follow about 50 or so other accounts. Many associated with those accounts for some reason follow me. On any given day I will not see any activity other than the multitude of tweets by those I follow. Then, about once a week or so, I get four or five followers who also follow Cannonball Adderley or Alvin Lee or Heidegger or some such (because I’m neither curious enough to wonder why nor smart enough to deduce direction).

            So you mock something for which I have not a care as if you care about it. I pity you for that.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Got anything for me hupo?

            Anything? Neato troll-speak (I guess) diversions aside?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Go ahead and ask if I lied to you right here and now.

            I know you know you don’t need to do so. But you called some whack shit for logic dude. That fail cannot happen again.

        • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          so Louisville then?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I don’t know that quote. Come to think of it, Louisville is a little sad on the quote list. I can’t reel off a single Louisville quote. Cleveland… no… never mind. Cincy… they wrote songs about it. Indianapolis… never mind. Except for Gary and Cincy, does anyone have a song/quote/anything about Ohio or Indiana?

            We’re setting ourselves up for jokes which ask why all the trees in that state lean to the east (or wherever).

            I got a ton of ’em.

          • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Cleveland. Snicker……………..

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            It’s not fair… it’s funny and true… and it covers Philly to Dee.

            Oh well. Let’s let lesser than Duck do something.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            That really looks cool in print. I wonder how real writers look in print.

  • Gregg says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

    Steve is right. The schools have to draw a line somewhere as far as approving credentials. The schools don’t have the time to read and review every blogger who requests a credential, so they draw their line at bloggers.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Yes… that was understood long ago… well… not understood… but stated. The delineation becomes unclear once studied by someone with an understanding of a toddler. But the response is the worry right now. There is zero reason the response should have been so extremely unprofessional… and still open-ended.

      Wtf man? My school is not this fucking stupid. They can’t be.

      Can they?

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +7 (from 9 votes)

      Well, I have some relationship with the media. Eggers, for example, has answered any question I ask him. Buker has been good. Schnell wrote me requesting an interview about my past stories. ESPN featured the Michelle Castori issue when I wrote about that. They had 1080 and Ted Miller commenting on what I wrote in this blog. If you look under interviews, I interviewed McGill and Brandin Cooks, who are both NFL players. Bob D changed the donation system after I wrote him explaining the minimum donation was too high for some fans. When I wrote an article on how to stop the spread, DeCarolis wrote (and I have the email still) “Read the article, interesting, and sent to the coaches, thanks for sharing.” Does this sound like an average blog? I wrote Riley giving him every opportunity to address issues here (as a “legitimate” journalist would, when writing about a person), etc. We now have a live twitter feed with real time recruiting info. These are just a few accomplishments. I don’t think this is a standard blog. It is a step above the average blog, and a step below “mainstream media”, by Fenk standards. So in this case I think he should look at it individually, and I didn’t make it difficult. I sent him a list of all these credentials and accomplishments to show it’s not a standard blog because I fully realize they can’t look through every blog. I made his job easy and brought the material to him.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Is Castori the right name? Am I thinking of Buddy Teevens at Dartmouth and the zero response I got from that?

        That was dirty as hell if there ever was dirty… IN MY OPINION.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          I had the name wrong, but the girl who created Lyle’s spreadsheet, which I sent to the NCAA, btw.

          http://angrybeavs.com/athletics/6272

          Never heard back from them…

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Csatari?

            I need to look back in the archives… if I have them. I remember that I was so disgusted with Teevens at the time.

  • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    I have heard others speak to it, however, and not very positively.

    I think a number of people, including myself, have come on this site and at first glance, not had very positive feedback initially, but after sticking around and actually listening to the message it becomes apparent just how necessary a critical voice has been around the program. Most of the people ragging on the site are those who are threatened by it’s content.

    Credentials are under much tighter scrutiny than ever before for a variety of reasons.

    What changed to cause the increased scrutiny? As opposed to when?

    I’m not arguing with Mr. Fenk, just want to get a better understanding. I did not even know of Mr. Fenk before this post, but I have heard others speak to him, however, and not very positively.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Duh.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I do want to say that Steve has to toe the party line with every word. So if there was any interchange where he was seemingly uncomfortable, that might explain it. This is a freely open and egregious communication. I do not understand it from the standpoint that I have met the person and people around him. I also abhor it from the standpoint that anyone in a professional capacity would admit as much without fear of repurcussion.

      I mean, least worthy line, angry goes scorched earth with blog and twitter. What happens? Does football feel that impact? I ask because football is supposedly the revenue king.

      Is that litmus test enough?

      Or would we rather see this blog go to hell while making it all about academics and estuary studies… which I also would not mind… but football jock might mind?

      There is a litmus test. Whether or not we want to accept it is the story… I guess.

      I’m still pissed at SF’s response. But The last response I was pissed at was CR’s postgame response. So who the hell cares?

  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Just an update:
    Has there been any further correspondence?

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      No.
      I wrote Fenk showing my accomplishments with the blog, outlined above, trying to explain it’s not a standard blog. I asked him for their policy on media pass in writing so I could read it over and see if I fit or not. Didn’t get that, either. I asked him if he has ever issued a pass to independent media (rivals), and no response to that. Maybe he is busy. Hopefully he will answer all.

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    What I want to know is if Fenk has ever given media passes to independents? Because I think the people at Rivals had passes while they were independent media. If that’s true, then he’s a liar, and possibly discriminating based on the fact my site dissents (this is what is implied by saying he hasn’t heard good things about my site). It’s possible that’s not true, and all he would have to do is clarify or answer the question so we know instead of speculate.

    If anyone has inside knowledge of how the media passes work, whether they have been given to independents, etc, please email me. Fenk has stopped responding. Perhaps I should ask Ed Ray for a response.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Fenk should have stopped responding based on just his responses. That was total bullshit. And I’m glad he did stop responding on one hand… and disappointed he did after so responding.

      He should have shut the fuck up before he wrote what he did. That was beyond excuse. It was also antithetic to proper democratic response, which might be expected from an ivory tower… well… not expected by those who would bash on ivory towers… but expected by us laymen.

      • hellobeavers says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

        We get it. You don’t approve of the tone of his email. It’s strange that you care so much.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          I couldn’t care less about tone. Have you ever read anything I’ve written?

          It’s all about content. I’ve clearly outlined that content and what I think of it above.

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

    So Fenk did respond just now.

    “Beaverblitz did not have credentials until Yahoo came aboard; Angie has had a pass the last three years or so. The Bleacherreport did not have credentials until Turner Broadcasting; and they have not attended many of our events. 5417377470 is my number if you would like to have a conversation. Thank you”

    If that is true Blitz didn’t have credentials, then I’m okay with his decision. I could have sworn I remember Angie and Eric Machado being involved before that, though. If anyone wants a project: find Eric or Angie (or anyone with Rivals) interviewing Riley pre Yahoo. I might look on youtube later if I have time.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      If it’s a sweep, let it be a sweep.

      That still does not excuse the behavior of a professional information director.

      And I say that knowing that hands are tied. Well… hoping that hands are tied. This should have been similar to the response originally. I’m quite disappointed with what actually happened.

  • mckalk says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Fenk knows that Banker is gone, right? Is he holding those comments against Angry?

  • goBeavers goBeavers says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 15 votes)

    They don’t allow bloggers. You are a blogger.

    Seems pretty clear cut to me.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Go ahead and now define blogger.

      Go ahead.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        And… waiting….

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          And… waiting….

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            …. not like you would ever back up your words… with even words.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Lesson to all: Dumbshit who said something on a blog and thought he was smart was just a dumshit… again.

            Dumbshit never bothers to take part because dumbshit thinks he’s too good to do so. But dumbshit is who dumbshit is, living a dumbshit life.

            Here’s to dumbshit!

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Wait… that was supposed to be inspiring.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I need to watch less Wes Andersen films… I think.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Apple? Wtf does fruit have to do with my late night rants?

          • cj cj says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            self included…?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Always.

      • goBeavers goBeavers says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +7 (from 9 votes)

        Wow, some of us don’t live on this site so please excuse me for not checking it frequently enough to respond quick enough for you.

        A “blogger” is someone that runs an independent website where they post and discuss topics, typically centered around a certain theme or topic. Often, but not always, there’s a an inherent bias or a tendency to editorialize.

        Obviously, the ascent of social media has really blurred the lines between traditional media and bloggers. What is really the difference between a blogger and a beat writer? Some might argue none other than one is paid and associated with a large(r) media organization, and the other is doing it on their own (for free or ad revenue, etc.).

        The problem is, these organizations have to draw the line somewhere. They draw the line at independent media members. Maybe with bloggers becoming more professional and credible, we’ll see some start to get press credentials. Blogs have changed mightily in the past 10 years, and I expect we’ll see even more changes in the years to come.

        The thing is, this blog still has many really unprofessional elements, I think that’s part of the appeal. I mean, calling competitors “fascists” is not really something that members of the media typically do. Calling on people to support them in their causes is also not something they typically do. There’s a definite distinction between a blog, and a traditional media site.

        Btw, you’ve posted 48 of the 98 comments here before I made this post.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          The last quip aside, thanks for the answer. I apologize for calling out your woeful drive-by in the manner I did. There is not a definitive line between blogs and media anymore. And it’s not the fault of social media. It’s the fault of media themselves. Just look at tv. Does FOX News do anything besides what you describe this blog as doing? Does that make them a vlog? But that’s precisely their business model, and others have followed suit because it makes them money.

          How many “real” media now end their empty fluff pieces with, “And now the links,” or,”What do you think?”

          The answer to that last is,”Almost all of them.”

          Some of angry’s posts are stand alone or purely to pass on information. Many are meant to provoke thought or conversation. It’s no different than credentialed media except in ownership structure. And even that can be argued as the same as some.

  • Numbers says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

    Angry, you’re getting exactly what I expected of Fenk. His fear of valid criticism. Better idea, get yourself a league wide press credential by going directly through the Pac12 offices in Walnut Creek.

    • beavblazer beavblazer says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      You’ve got one month. Do it!

      https://www.sportssystems.com/clients/pac-12/

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Blazers ideas?

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Since you didn’t ask… Max to Butler first. I know there will be four others, and he’s restricted. Max to Middleton. Buy him up. Sign WM for one year… oh yeah… you can feel it now… oh yeah… and then go out and get Chandler and Pierce.

          Or just fucking buy LBJ.

          NBA FA is so confusing….

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Better man than the rest of us Numbers. Solutions aren’t always the easiest. And this is not a solution in the best… well… in the best it is. But that will have to be the very best of all bests. It would almost rival a fairy tale where dead people don’t die… or something.

      It still does not answer the question. The question was asked by angry in the beginning, and I was unwilling to listen to the angry as he spoke. But then I heard the words he spoke and the uncareful detractions and untruthful distractions. And it all became….

      Make up your own fucking mind people.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      That’s a good idea.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

        They won’t listen… they never do… not that I tell them… not that anyone tells them.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

          And please please please please don’t read this as some teenager and think there’s some space-agey shit going on. In fact, there are major cults looking to grift money from you. And they might sound like Guy Intology or Boringism (with lots of sex with underage and unwilling girls).

          Yes… I know right now that Guy Intology looks like the better buy. It has spacey agey shit and slave labor and… well… slave labor… I guess the viability of this cult is slave labor.

          Guy Intology really sucks as a cult… sorry… not religion… wanting to not be called a cult.

          But Boringism has a shrooming patron (because no other cult has a patron) who plagiarizes at least four books in order to make his fucking idiot followers believe he’s “divining” one book.

          I mean… how swag is that?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -3 (from 3 votes)

            I know you don’t want to hear it. But religion of any kind is a farce most often implemented in order to gain power among those most often considered weak in our society. Once they grab your G’ma, they grab your money… and G’ma’s too.

            Just ask G’ma.

            edit: I was sending this out to teens, but it sounds so preacher that it sucks. Can someone please pray for me?

            That’s a joke… but someone will actually waste their time thinking that they’re doing something as fruitful as I am doing right now, typing this very sentence.

  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Jebus farking krighst!!!

    What the golly Molly?

  • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 6 votes)

    Angry did you finally get fed up with nut butter and abort him? (much like his parents should have)

    • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      “’I’m going to be deleting the troll comments in this thread, because this issue is serious to me.”
      per Angry near the top of this thread.

  • WFO WFO says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +20 (from 22 votes)

    Three threads in a row of Jack cussing and babbling incoherently to his imaginary friends aren’t helping your efforts.

  • hellobeavers says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)

    I suspect the topic is rather complicated as to why you could not obtain media credentials, but the short answer is No, and Fenk gave you the short answer.

    An athletic program has a lot to consider behind the scenes. One thing to consider is that the Athletic Department uses it’s limited space to give access to journalists that reach a wide audience and will utilize their credentials to cover all athletics – not just Football, Basketball and Baseball. The traditional publications spend most of their space on the major sports, but they also write about track, soccer, gymnastics etc…

    As already noted, you would need to be affiliated with a media organization, like the Oregonian. That’s likely because they have internal standards and resources, including reasonable access to legal counsel. Just looking at the NCAA terms and conditions for use of credentials, it says the following:

    “The use of any account, description, picture, photograph, video, audio, reproduction, or other information covering the events other than for news coverage of, or magazines, books or stories about, the Events is prohibited…Real?time transmission of streaming video, digital images, real?time audio, including play?byplay and statistics, of any game of the championship is exclusive to the NCAA’s Web site and/or any other Web site designated by the NCAA and its rightsholders. “Real?time” is defined by the NCAA as a continuous play?by?play account or live, extended live/real?time statistics, or detailed description of an Event.”

    So in short, this blog ***MAY*** be in violation of the NCAA terms and conditions due to the game threads you put up. While a case could be made that it isn’t a violation, it is still just an example of the potential consequences an athletic department must consider. When it comes to this sort of thing, it’s advisable for Fenk to consider the spirit of the rules and make a decision that best mitigates the risk of violating NCAA rules. i.e. he can trust that the Oregonian or Yahoo have reasonable policies and procedures in place to maintain compliance. And in the event that one of those publications is not in compliance, he can work closely with them to remediate the situation.

    Then you have the basic explanation that the athletic department has a direct interest in preventing “negative media”. If you work for a Bank or a Pharmaceutical company, you may be very familiar with negative media as a risk. Oregon State University an has a similar interest in avoiding fines, penalties and negative media. So why would they give a blogger whose website is critical (often unreasonably so) that level of access to the program?

    Again, if they so desired they could probably devote limited resources to working with you to gain a comfort level, but it’s not worth the trouble.

    Very Short answer as to why they don’t give you credentials: Compliance reasons.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -4 (from 6 votes)

      Incorrect. That’s why I continue to go all Cav and call for bear crawls or something. He did not give the short answer. He gave an answer then followed it with,”Everyone does it.” Then when told that,”Everyone does it,” is childish reasoning, he went and said that it was because he wanted to censor content. Then he attempted to minimize that with some vagaries about blogs and media and such.

      • hellobeavers says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)

        He said no and gave a brief explanation as to why without going into the details of it. He said they don’t give credentials to bloggers – and there is likely a very good reason behind that. The only thing childish here is when told no, basically you are all crying “But why? I want it!”

        He didn’t say he wants to censor content. He said:

        “Our policy is that we do not credential independent bloggers, websites, etc. You will find that is the case league-wide for the most part. We have turned down others before as well. Thank you for your interest. sf”

        He said for the most part, because there ***may*** be exceptions somewhere that he is not aware of. He is trained not to make sweeping statements. His response was professional and fair. Then Angry pushed the subject and got this response:

        “Anybody can develop a website and call it media. So, the policy we have here (also the league) is that you have to be affiliated with a national news/sports organization such as the Rivals/Yahoo relationship. Bleacherreport is another good example and one that was denied league-wide until it associated with Turner Sports.”

        Again, a reasonable and professional response. He doesn’t address why, but there is a reason for it – otherwise they wouldn’t have the policy.

        Then he says:

        “I know very little of your website, which is why I have looked at it today. I have heard others speak to it, however, and not very positively. Sorry […], my stance has not changed, nor will it. Credentials are under much tighter scrutiny than ever before for a variety of reasons. If you feel you need to blast me on your website that’s your business.”

        Again he doesn’t go into why – I’d bet dollars to donuts it has to do with Legal and Compliance issues.

        So where does he say anything about censoring content? Perhaps I missed that follow up in the thread somewhere.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

          The only thing childish here is when told no, basically you are all crying “But why? I want it!”

          Incorrect. I don’t care about whether or not angry gets credentials if the reasoning is sound.

          Our policy is that we do not credential independent bloggers, websites, etc.
          Good enough. Even a follow-up of, “I wish I could be clear of what constitutes such in today’s social media landscape. But we feel yours falls in this category, and we have a hard policy in place for this.”

          Instead:
          You will find that is the case league-wide for the most part.
          Everyone else does it.

          Then:
          I know very little of your website, which is why I have looked at it today. I have heard others speak to it, however, and not very positively. Sorry […], my stance has not changed, nor will it. Credentials are under much tighter scrutiny than ever before for a variety of reasons. If you feel you need to blast me on your website that’s your business.
          Meaning what? This is very unprofessional for a SID to write, let alone say out loud. Content is central to an apparent snap decision made via his cursory glance at a site he previously dismissed because, “everyone else does it.”

          Then in an attempt to mitigate his unprofessional statement:
          Anybody can develop a website and call it media. So, the policy we have here (also the league) is that you have to be affiliated with a national news/sports organization such as the Rivals/Yahoo relationship.
          Huh? This is so vague as to be just plain weird. There is now case law to point to as precedents for even the most casual blogger to be considered media under every state shield law out there. In the states with the weakest shield laws, they even protect bloggers as journalists whose posts devolve into ad hominem attacks of their subjects so long as said blogger has also acted in ways consistent with journalism standards in obtaining and publishing real information. There is a legal delineation, and this site far supersedes that line despite all my attempts to clutter it with comments. There is also federal executive policy which makes a distinction. The IRS cites FOIA in order to refuse appeals for bloggers who claim tax exempt status and “news gathering” procedures. taking of profit, structure of ownership (including the presence, or lack thereof, of conglomeration or affiliation) and readership has absolutely nothing to do with what constitutes media.

          It can get a little hairy depending on the format chosen by any given blogger. But even FB and Twitter can be considered journalism and legally enjoy all rights granted under the First Amendment.

          So ^^^this^^^ explanation is specious, arbitrary and counter to legal precedent and policy. And that’s from a public institution which must abide by both state and federal laws and policies. And if that institution also claims tax exempt status itself, it further weakens the explanation.

          He should have said, “We have limited availability of such passes, and we choose to grant them to those entities we deem large enough to disseminate information to the largest audiences available. I’m sorry that we can’t accommodate your request because of this seemingly arbitrary policy. And if your situation alters in such a way that we find your readership to meet that arbitrary threshold, we can revisit your request. But thank you for taking an interest, and good luck with your endeavors.”

          Instead… ^^^all that crap^^^… which angers me as a lover and once protector of the US Constitution.

          Maybe that clarifies my ramblings a little?

  • Angry@angry says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +11 (from 13 votes)

    Trying to make Fenk look like a bad guy certainly doesn’t help your case for future credentials. Rules are rules, why would they make an exception for a blog who often reaches when criticizing them. Basically, what’s the point of inviting someone into your house when they just want to magnify your inadequacies, and point fingers

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -8 (from 8 votes)

      Again, the censorship of content does not fly as anything remotely resembling a logical argument. And it speaks directly against the mission of the very institution you attempt to defend with said fallacy.

      You are essentially saying they have zero honor, disobey state and federal laws and are too weak of mind, will, whatever to withstand any dissent, if that’s what you think it is.

      Murphy’s Law; Corollary one: Murphy was an optimist.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)

      They shouldn’t make an exception, unless they’ve made exceptions to others in the past (e.g. I still think Blitz had access before they were with Yahoo).

      Basically, what’s the point of inviting someone into your house when they just want to magnify your inadequacies, and point fingers

      Not inviting them, for that reason alone, just means you’re insecure. There are MPs (my problems) and YP (your problems). This falls under a Fenk YP.

      I really don’t care about credentials. I thought I could go to a few games free of charge and ask some questions the “real media” is terrified to ask, but I can’t (unless the Pac-12 grants me one. I’ll try, but it seems unlikely). So long as those rules applied to all indie media I am fine with it. If there is a single exception, then I’m not fine with it and will raise hell. So we’ll see if anyone can find an exception. I know Mamma Machado won’t answer me if I ask her when she became credentialed, but maybe someone can find that out. Eric, too. Any of the pre-Yahoo Blitz clan, really.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        How about the Tribune? It certainly is not affiliated with a national news/sports organization….

        It’s not even interstate other than its online presence. And it is independent.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Here is what his response should have been. I’m surprised there isn’t something similar for OSU. Note that the “everyone else does it” aspect of his response is bashed on the rocks by this page.
        http://www.gohuskies.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=30200&ATCLID=208229841

  • AndersenEra says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    The reasoning Fenk gave is complete fabricated nonsense or Beaver Byte which is affiliated with Sports Illustrated would have been given a credential. I know the guy and he too was ready to ask real questions with potential interest vs the constant softballs lobbed or placed on the tee for Riley.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

      Yes we all know Byte, he used to post here and maybe still does, and he was the Beaver mascot (yes, he was actually Benny). Did he ever ask for credentials?

      Also, Byte asked me to write for his site in the past. Say I do. Does that make me associated with SI, and thus affiliated with a National Media outlet? Maybe I should write for Byte then reapply to Fenk. I’d like to see him weasel out of that.

      • beavblazer beavblazer says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        He was Benny? Had no idea

        Pretty sure he still posts here under another name on occasion, but obviously without plugging the beaverbyte site

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

          He was Benny?

          He sure was. I always found that hilarious, along with his obsession with finishing the stadium even though they couldn’t sell out what they already had (and attendance was plummeting under Riley). I guess he believes in “build it and they will come.” I can understand finishing it now that Andersen is the coach.

          BeaverByte is actually a clever name for a website. He has turned it into …something. I never visit because I hate aggregate sites, and last I saw he was just aggregating news from all over the web.

          • AndersenEra says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

            He hasn’t posted on Byte for close to 2 years. They have a new stale writer who does the same old boring style of expected stuff. I think Angry should try to be an occasional contributor there and see how Fenk squirms. The original Byte did ask for a credential and apparently being the mascot and affiliated with SI doesn’t compare to having the buffalo vag of Mamma Machado in Fenk’s eyes. Maybe he liked Schnell for similar reasons.

          • beavblazer beavblazer says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            C”mon man. I was just about to eat dinner and you just had to say THAT? Having bison burgers too….

      • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

        He asked for credentials in a tartan cover hanging from a tartan lanyard.

  • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    sooooo, Jack. Kevin Love to Portland, right?

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

      A little late on that ITYS whiskey. I didn’t bet on Olshey retaining Aldridge and maxing him and Greg Monroe (or at least trying). And if that deal closes, there need to be a couple trades after that as well.

      Besides, LBJ and Love were openly meeting at a pool in LA two days ago… not exactly a welcome sight for anyone other than Cavs fans on this front.

      • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

        bullshit! You wrote that Love was coming to Portland. Nice attempt at backpedaling there

        “5:2 Love is Blazer-bound?”

        http://angrybeavs.com/athletics/11300#bottom

        It’s in that thread. In case you forgot

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

          Backpedaling? Did I deny I said that? I’m looking at the post above, and I can’t parse any of those words or phrases in order to make them seem remotely like a denial.

          Btw, ITYS=I told you so… in case you thought that was the phantom denial you’re railing against?

          • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

            how was I a little late? By half a day? I told you from the beginning he wasn’t coming to Portland. Yet you seem to think you’re the clairvoyant one. Whatever and so be it.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

            Or I was just blowing hot wind?

            Sometimes this is just a collection of comments. Sometimes we just shoot the shit like normal people. I didn’t think Rumpelstiltskin was making a deal with me when we were writing all that.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            And now I’m hearing Monroe signed with the Bucks?

            Hoo boy! Today will be interesting. Who now? D Jordan?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I do believe Kim Hughes can stay in Indiana, without a paycheck from the Blazers.

          • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            What a dipshit. Or maybe it was the Blazers front office for not making it clear he had to keep quiet. He basically said “we’re not telling people what we know right now…..and here is what we know”

          • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            or you were just blowing. Par for the course though. You seem to think you are clever and so much smarter than most. But in all honesty with some of the shitty music you post here and your stupid, late night meaningless political rants, somewhere a village is missing an idiot. You’re an aging hipster. Stay in Eugene please. You fit right in down there.

            Much like your worthless opinion, your taste in EVERYTHING SUCKS

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Heh heh… should I get off your lawn too?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            You know who hasn’t signed yet? LBJ and Wade…

            Huh? Huh? Both max to the Blazers? Huh? It’s gonna happen.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Wade 1 year for $20m after LMA comes up in rumors about Miami. And now LMA talking to the Lakers… again… this time with Kobe chained up in the basement.

            This is turning into a fun FA period if not for the Blazers adding just a couple good benchers and getting Lillard’s extension done. Blazers still need to spend $21m just to reach the cap mandate.

  • beaverkman beaverkman says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Would a podcast give you legitimacy?

  • OSAlum94 OSAlum94 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    Dear Angry, This country is still great. Anything that you truly desire is obtainable. Chart your path and go for it. As my sweet grandmother used to say. Put your nose to the grindstone. Many successful people were rejected multiple times. Don’t take it to heart. Keep working at it. You have a great blog here. It’s new media and the old guard does not understand it. Over time this site will evolve further and at some point it will be difficult to deny you.

    • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 10 votes)

      “Dear Angry, This country is still great.”

      I wish I could agree with that sentence

      • scotty says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

        Great is relative. It’s not what it once was, but most places are worse. I’ll take it, thank you : )

        Ask me again in 10-20 years…

        • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

          Looking at it over time, the human condition overall in the World is better than it was. By most measurable factors, it’s better in the U.S., too.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Better than when (what time period), and by what standard of “better”?

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Look at the beginning of civilization to now. Things that fit into better include, but aren’t limited to, global standard of living, average health, number of deaths due to war, decrease in violent crime, (in the u.s.), increased level of education. What’s hurting more is the Earth being squeezed as far as resources go. Environmental damage has shifted. Economically wages being flat isn’t good (in the u.s.). There’s other factors to.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            That’s why I asked your time frame and definition of better. The original comment was “I wish I could agree with that sentence” in response to: “Dear Angry, This country is still great.”

            So he was talking about the US. I assume 1770s-present. Not the beginning of time. One could argue the US was greater in the past and that we’re in decline. I think this is how most of the world views us, and how many US citizens view their own country. By average health do you mean the average age of death? Yes, that’s higher. But is the extended life good quality of life? In many cases no, and stats like that don’t take quality of life into account. Also, how do you acknowledge resources are being squeezed, yet also say things are better? If there are fewer resources per capita, which we both agree on I think, then the OP’s sentiment that the US is in decline is probably true. I don’t think Whiskey is a Globalist who gives a rat’s ass about global society. He was talking specifically to the US.

          • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            ” I don’t think Whiskey is a Globalist who gives a rat’s ass about global society. He was talking specifically to the US.”

            And you’d be 100% correct

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            We can go with the U.S. exclusively, then. If someone says the US was greater in the past, then they would have to identify when this was and why. That would be a tough thing to back up. Healthwise, you could look at infant mortality, elimination of diseases, trauma care, access to healthcare. While the earth is being squeezed, are people in the US going without as a result? Probably not.

        • Just Dansen says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          I agree that “great” is relative, and I’d absolutely take living in the United States over other obvious less than ideal living circumstances, but if we always compare the US to the worst, than it’s always going to appear “great”. That fosters a state of stagnation and complacency, which in my opinion, isn’t a good thing.

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Good thing Biley isn’t running the country then!

          • Just Dansen says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

            “We’ve got some new legislation in the works that we think will get the nation excited. We’ll change some things here and there, make some tweaks here and there, but over all we’ve got a solid foundation. It’ll be a neat deal”.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

            The Neat Deal instead of the New Deal? Hey I’d give it a shot.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            THAT is really really funny.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)

        I’d just like to state, for the record, I don’t think a Country can be great and be in debt. At least not debt that can’t be repaid. That will end badly. It’s just a question of the method. Right now each American owes 60k toward the National Debt. Meanwhile, their wages are stagnant, and likely declining after [unofficial] inflation. That is definitely not prosperity. Debt is how societies and civilizations collapse, historically, not how they prosper. So I’m with Whiskey on this one. US is in decline.

        One positive in the US is we still have a 1st Amendment (and others, but 1A is most important). It’s what makes us greater than many of the other Countries who are indebted. In the sense we’re free, yes, we’re great compared to many other Countries, but we’re less free today than years past thanks to some crappy SCOTUS ‘decisions’ (what I’d call flat out misinterpretations).

        Oh crap, the blog has turned political! Whine whine whine.

  • Mud&Sticks Mud&Sticks says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    I hate to see that some of my fellow Beavers are so out of touch with what’s going down but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since most of the American people are the same way.

    FWIW – Here’s an e-mail I sent out to some friends of mine who also can’t see or aren’t willing to see what’s coming.

    =============
    A friend sent this to me not because they thought I should buy this fellow’s (James Dale Davidson) book or subscribe to his news letter but because they thought he’s done the best job they’ve seen at explaining why this economy has to eventually fail. I’m in agreement with my friend so that’s why I’m forwarding this along to you.

    I watched the video but I struggled with it because IMO Mr. Davidson’s monotone presentation made it more than a bit monotonous.

    This is one of those videos where if you close the window you’re given an opportunity to go to a page that has a transcript of the infomercial so that way you can skim/read what it is he has to say.

    Link to video infomercial: http://pro.strategicinvestment.com/NDPCOL1/ENDPR631

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      Real Estate was never able to collapse, so of course the current prices are artificial. Anyone buying is an absolute fool, given the banks are holding hundreds of thousands of homes/inventory off the market. Cartel? Rates are not low due to general bond demand (they are low because of several large buyers), which means houses are not high due to real demand.

      Stocks are clearly overpriced on all historical metrics, but also historic interest rates triggering share buy backs. The buybacks and momentum traders are driving up prices, not real demand. 50% drop seems optimistic. Dodd/Frank leverage, etc.

      Dollar sucks dick and has for 100 years. But it’s worse now.

      Unemployment is low because people retired or they’re on a govt program.

      18 tril in debt.

      Etc.

      But despite all that, technology could bail us out. This is the one thing doomsayers never mention. E.g. Harvesting wind and/or solar could bail us out, robots/automation, etc. The key is how fast technology moves. If we stick in the oil paradigm we are for sure collapsing.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I just watched the guys video. He’s basically on point (but also fear mongering and “selling his book”), but the one thing he fails to mention technology could save us. Again, every doomsdayer fails in this department. Yes, without sourcing energy we are doomed, but there have been some major advances in that department. I think the FED is printing hoping to get to the point we harvest new energy. Which is not an unreasonable strategy when total collapse is the alternative.

      Not that I advocate stealing via inflation. But you can understand why they’re doing it — probably because they know technology is the only thing that can save us (tho govt seems to think [baby boomer] medical care will save the economy. So dumb). They’re also trying to monetize away Social Security….so it’s a win win for them and govt. Loss for all savers and average people.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Privatizing SSI is the precise opposite of a win for government. Selling off the most successful government institution that has ever existed is not something government wants to do. That program also holds IOUs from all the conservatives who thought buying guns and rockets were the dandy thing to do. That $18t you listed is almost all defense contracts and financial deregulation. I say almost all because it’s never 100%. But Ivory soap ain’t got nuthin’ on them.

        If SSI was suddenly dissolved, most of the “conservative” debt would be dissolved or sold along with it. And then private parties could fuck the regular guy just like they fuck anyone with a 401k or an IRA. They take 75% of what you would earn without you knowing you ever lost what they stole from you in fees. Direct transfers like SSI cannot ever be privatized. First, pay your fucking goddamn debts, you fucking “conservative” shits. If you don’t, this country will default soon enough.

        But anyone associated with Bechtel, Koch, Brown & Root, various oil and shale explorers and wholesalers… who are also retailers… or former presidents, vice-presidents and cabinet members… they’re golden.

        Fucking morons.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          No I didn’t say they were trying to privatize SS (Though Bush claimed to want to do that), but monetize it away. Inflate it away. If grandma gets a check for 1k via a bond that costs 3%, and inflation is 10%, they’re paying their “obligations” while really not. It appears that’s the strategy. We’re in monetize debt phase right now, yet Yellen’s jawboning about potential rate hikes is enough right now to keep people from realizing that [which is pretty amazing when you realize most investors in this market, besides corps buying back shares, are sophisticated investors/hedge funds. It’s amazing they can continually pull a “boy who cried wolf” with that crowd].

          ps. I realize SS is funded through a payroll tax not a bond, but with fewer workers that can’t last (they are likely already printing bonds to fund it, but who knows, because there’s not much transparency). But even if they stick to a payroll tax — if the average worker gets a 3% raise and inflation is 6-10%, then SS makes a net profit and is successfully monetized. The paradigm is “too much debt/monetize it without anyone realizing.” We’ll see how long that can last.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            That makes no sense. And I’m pretty sure I’m decent at math and know a little smidge about econ.

            That makes no sense. Again… on the sense front… that makes none.

            Most of the debt owed by the US government is owed to trust funds which Reagan decided could “lend” their excesses at no cost… well… it’s a little complicated. But It is Reagan’s fault. And it’s even more so idiot boy’s fault. And Obama does not get a pass. but he’s guilty of about 25% of what “conservatives” want to lay on him… because they think you and I are stupid fucks who even care.

            I’m sad to say that Clinton was a good prez until his last four months. And it’s not the bad I’m sad about. It’s that his good was considered good.

            This rant could go on forever… and might make sense eventually.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            And they are trying to privatize SSI. They will always do so. It is a cash cow whose debtors are them. If they can erase that debt, they are left with a cash cow.

            That ain’t like them at all.

            But by all means, let’s go out and demonize the waning voices who stand against this un-tyrrany. Because they must get paid by bad people like… um… “labor”… and “civil rights groups”… and whatever other lie they pretend to be. If they could only be on the right side, they would be funded four-fold by real groups with “liberty” and “patriot” and “freedom” in their names. Those are the bastions of… ooh look… squirrell!

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Actually, “labor” was conned as well. If there’s a single pension fund out there that remains a pension fund, I salute them. Those are the labor I support. If your leaders sold your pensions to keep the company running… before it wasn’t… or if your pensions went “private” and disappeared in one of the many financial meltdowns allowed by the incremental deregulations inflicted upon you…

            … then whatever.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          I’m not sure what you mean about the 401k. Do you mean if you put money into a mutual fund or ETF? Yes, those take management fees. If someone manages their own 401k, though, they would only pay commission fees.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Even those are excessive. The fees charged are the only reason these funds exist. It matters not that they make a profit or lose money within the funds themselves. You’ll notice that many losers stay solvent regardless. Most people don’t think that this is the financial equivalent of a door to door frozen meat salesman managing their money. But it is precisely that. In fact, the meat salesman knows more about food than do the people who manage money know about the stock market, for the most part. And by “most” I mean about 99.99%.

            Those who give no thought to the process give gravitas to the salespeople. Those who give 30 seconds per day looking at just the market data are already smarter than the salespeople… because they have a vested interest and half an inkling.

  • Mud&Sticks Mud&Sticks says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

    Is this a great country or what?

    snippet
    PREDATORY WAR & HIDDEN TERRORISM
    • War is being openly used to defend the USDollar
    • War is being forced on nations, which harms their economies and standard of living
    • War is used by the Langley gangsters to steal gold and to sell US-made weapons
    • United States uses war on terrorism as smokescreen to conduct narcotics operations
    • Al Qaeda has always been a Langley asset for producing terror
    • ISIS/ISIL is the new terror group on the block, also a Langley asset for terror
    • The USGovt requires boogeymen enemies and uses hidden terror devices
    • Langley has long used a strategy to disrupt nations, to destabilize enemy nations
    • In the last decade, disruption, destabilization, and ruin has extended to allied nations
    • Numerous terror events have a Langley MO and signature, usually tied to motive
    • See Oslo bombing, Madrid train bombing, Fukushima earthquake, Bremen fire
    • Texas should beware of refinery explosions, after New York Fed gold request
    • As long as war remains a USGovt foreign policy, the USDollar will die

    SANCTIONS, PROPAGANDA & ABUSE OF PRIVILEGE
    • Abuse of SWIFT bank transaction procedures has been over-used
    • Sanctions against Russia are deeply harmful to Europe, but not at all to United States
    • USEconomy abuses USDollar reserve privilege, by paying bills with printed output
    • USMilitary abuses USDollar privilege, by waging war on a credit card
    • US system lives off the USFed printing press, an inflation based scheme
    • Entire US system has become a well recognized Ponzi Scheme
    • Debt rating agencies like S&P, Moodys, Fitch play supporting role
    • US & Western press networks fill the air and cables with political propaganda
    • As long as sanctions and abused privilege occur, the USDollar will die
    snippet

    The above is from an article written by Jim Willie, the Golden Jackass

    Jim Willie: GUARANTEE Dollar Death Dynamics

    http://www.silverdoctors.com/jim-willie-guarantee-dollar-death-dynamics/

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

      While a lot of this stuff is true, you can’t take fear mongers at face value. They are describing symptoms instead of diseases.

      Just like with Riley…he was awful, but there was hope. There’s hope, still, and it’s human ingenuity. All the fear mongers overlook it. Silver will save nobody, and I own silver…Guns will also save nobody, and I own guns. Food will save you for some time. But what we need are solutions, like harvesting energy from the sun, robots, etc. Energy and labor/automation, spending less than revenue, etc are our way out. If the Doomsdayers [or Keynsians for that matter] spent any energy on those issues we’d maybe have a solution instead of all the fear mongering. Elon Musk is someone I respect. The guy is working to solve these exact problems. We need more people like that and less of this fearmongering crap. Great, I buy a book that tells me to buy silver and live in a bunker. Now what? It’s not a solution to live in fear.

      We still cling to a Republic (vs Democracy, which for whatever reason the govt wants you to believe we are), so why not put our energy toward maintaining that and also toward solutions, like energy and labor. There’s nothing wrong with leisure if the lost work is covered by productivity (e.g. robots), but there is much wrong with leisure when it’s funded by someone else’s productivity and that person doesn’t reap the leisure.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        You apparently missed:
        http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40661.php

        Come on dude! Get with the times… and keep that silver.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Dang, go Beavs. Eric Sprott is going to be so pissed.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            It’s like you said. People underestimate tech.

            That is the one single thing about the US that is great. It’s not that anyone can be anything. That’s bullshit to the Nth degree. There are about 30 countries out there where merit is more evenly considered. And I probably miss by about 10 to 20 on that count… to the bad side. The fact is, you are lucky as hell to be a part of the 4% who manage to lift themselves from one quintile in this country to the next. And you’re doubly more lucky to not be one of the 12% who trend downward. Obviously, we’re talking about median numbers.

            But don’t let that get in the way of greatness.

            But if you got one singular idea, something worth something… someone is willing to pay something to you… if you signed the correct paperwork for the brilliant invention you designed or process you developed. And even then, don’t expect to get paid unless your lawyer is honest and doesn’t suddenly demand current payment… after signing a contract for deferred payment… because that’s what the opponent does… they buy off your fucking lawyer.

            But I digress.

            Any chance we get Kevin Love in Portland this off-season? Not that it would matter since a PF can never be a lead piece of a championship effort.

            Go back through history. It’s a 3, a 2/3 or a 5 that makes you a champion.

            Yay Blazers! We got lots of… fours.

            Oh… because this is the best country on earth.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            People underestimate tech.

            They really do. We’re close to mining comets, too. Precious metals are no safe haven, but neither are houses, stocks, or dollars. The biggest winner will be the smallest loser because everyone is going to lose except the select few who are short at the right time, and even they might lose because their counter-party is broke.

            That being said, there is a small hope/chance tech and human ingenuity bails us out!

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            There is a collection of people so protected financially that they can speculate on short.

            Hell… there are whole funds designed on the concept.

            They bet always that everything fails eventually. And then they spend less than they bet to make it fail. Then they collect.

            That was hard to figure out.

            Deregulation is a bitch that bites. Invisible hands and all that blah blah blah.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Even better are the ones who destroy in order to make money off the rebuild… not that KBR, Bechtel or Halliburton would know anything about that.

            Those names go back to LBJ, btw. Nixon and Reagan were just their playthings.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            It sounds like you’re describing Goldman there. Or the Fed? Those are the only two institutions I know of protected from losses.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            It’s not the institutions themselves. When will people get over that? It’s the people. Do you think they make zero profit for their efforts?

            You know… people rail against the NCAA and such. And I can see why since they do nothing now. But the death penalty was very real for SMU. And it could be again.

            But what I’m saying is that actual regulation set up by we the people might one day make a world where a company gets the death penalty… like they should. I don’t know why you even throw your hat into the deregulation ring. Laissez faire is the most idiotic financial concept ever conceived. NAY! It is not only the most fucked up decision that could ever be made by an honest person. It is also the most fucked up financial idea in the history of fucked up financial ideas.

            Let’s start from the simple point. There is demand. Demand needs to find supply. Do you disagree?

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            I don’t know, man. I’ll be honest, and I don’t want this to trigger an argument, but you talk in semi-riddles, so it’s hard to follow. Just say what you think in straight-forward language.

            When did I throw my hat into a deregulation ring? I don’t remember ever doing that. I’m in the rational ring. Corporations have created enormous prosperity and products that make life good for many, if not all, and they have caused some enormous problems, too. Politicians don’t have to take bribes. These are weak politicians we’re electing. So the question becomes what to do about it…

            Obviously we need to vote for better representatives. For example, if I were a politician I’d never take a bribe. There have to be more people like this out there who have a backbone. We need to get them into office. Some of this falls on citizens, yeah? We elect and accept terrible candidates and vote for the worst of the two, when in reality there are more than two choices. This is the classic false dilemma fallacy. We have millions of choices, yet we are conditions to believe we have two.

            Something I am sure of is that people react to incentives (if we think in terms of this blog, let’s think of Riley when he signed his lifetime deal and lost all incentive to win). So that’s how the next paradigm has to be setup — where all “stakeholders” have skin in the game and incentive to act in ways beneficial to themselves and all. I think a Republic does this best, because it gives citizens rights they need to protect (incentive), so they are inherently engaged. Capitalism also does this much better than Socialism, etc. How people “regulate” the corporations is through voting at the ballot box and voting via our wallets. Now if we are going to go the easy route and beg “the govt” (which should be “the people” *cough*) to regulate corporations, then we better make sure the incentives are correct. Right now they aren’t. Maybe we agree here because you write “actual regulation set up by we the people”…

            I’d say that “regulation” would most simply be our wallets — if we don’t like a corporation we don’t buy their products, and they do get the death penalty. Does that make me in favor of “deregulation”, in the classic sense? No clue, I don’t get hung up on definitions like that, but I don’t think person x should be in person y’s affairs. Really we need a more informed and engaged citizen, and at the local levels where representatives and delegates have to answer to them face-to-face. That would fix a lot of problems.

            I also don’t like that supply/demand talk because again it’s a false dilemma. Why? Because it’s not one or the other. I can think of instances where supply triggers demand and instances where demand triggers a supply, and instances where there’s neither (most cases). I’m definitely in favor of any policy that gives citizens rights (rather than privileges), polices that encourage people and govt to stay out of others’ affairs and business, I’m extremely pro 1A, 2A, 4A, and 5A), etc. Again, I don’t know what this makes me, but I feel like it makes me a logical/rational human who is grateful to have some historically unheard of rights that I want to protect. I don’t care about labels at all, but every time we talk, you want to label me a conservative or pro deregulation or this and that. At one point you called me a Bircher…I didn’t even know what that was…

          • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            “Obviously we need to vote for better representatives” Very true, but, because ” people react to incentives” their definition of “better reps” is often short sighted. It seems to me we are headed down the road described by a wise man when he said something like, “whenever the majority learns they can vote for freebies paid for by the remaining producers things go to shit fast”……(.paraphrased!)

            There is a distracted and disinterested group in this country which each have a vote which counts just as much as the vote of those who are logical, and wiling to look at long term consequences. I’m short on time today, and the possible solutions are complicated. One step, for which we may not have time, is the return of local control over education. At least then pockets of serious citizens could have an impact on the future and develop some “better representatives”.

            Happy 4th to all, explain what it means to a youngster.
            And, Go Beavs!

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            It’s hard not to speak in semi-riddles, because that’s what truth looks like in short bursts nowadays.

            Let’s start with the idea that regulation is better than laissez faire (or vice versa). My contention is that there is no such thing as a free market when given over to laissez faire. There is not even a glimmer of hope for such if even one bad actor exists. If one exists, then s/he is at an advantage that cannot be ignored by every other actor in the market. Then every other actor must do what the bad actor does in order to mitigate that advantage. Politicians are no different. If everyone was honest, then they wouldn’t take money from anyone except publicly sourced funds that we set up years ago to finance political campaigns.

            Oh… that never happened.

            Then we talk about incentives. The politician’s incentive to take money is to have money, gain power, boost ego, keep or get a job. The corporation’s incentive for giving said money is that they are the ones who get the freebies.

            This quote, ““whenever the majority learns they can vote for freebies paid for by the remaining producers things go to shit fast,” paraphrased or not, is so very wrong. The majority gets squat out of about 80% of their representatives. Small businesses suffer along with individuals because they are not the ones who incentivize that representation. Corporations control these people, and they do so in order to take wealth from the majority.

            Supply and demand are not a false dilemma. They are, in the simplest terms, two measurements defined by simple formulas. When used to title whole swaths of economic thought like “Supply-Side Economics” or… or… is there another one?

            Anyway, classic economics (which does not exist in America since 1968) says that there are demands for goods and services that exist. If it is satisfactory for any actors to meet that demand, they will do so, also satisfying demand. This is called supply. There are costs involved on the supply side. But cost is not money. Cost is all involved. Does it cause me pain every single night when I lie down to sleep? That’s a cost. Does it kill my lungs and the environment around me? That’s a cost. Do I have to work in the dark during daylight hours and get no vitamin D? That’s a cost. But does my satisfaction in supplying this thing overcome all those costs? If it does, then supply occurs.

            For the short-sighted, money is the only cost and the only satisfaction. For the deregulated, all other costs which are known are removed from their lives. That’s because they can give some short-sighted person money enough to win an election, which gives them an immediate advantage over every other person, short-sighted or not. And who is most likely to forgo their moral compass and take money enough to match the first bad actor?

            Even better, the money and advertising spent by “independent” advocates on specific issues will drive the false dilemma into the dirt. Any prospective representative whose message in any way deviates from that mass of distraction is also now at a disadvantage. The only remedy for our second bad actor is detente. And we already know that neither of our candidates is coming from a place that isn’t purchased by those who have money (corporations), because the short-sighted have made sure that money is the only cost they bear in this easily predictable cycle of deregulation.

            What dies in the process is the unknown demand. That tech you speak of is slowed in its advancements because everyone is stuck in the short term looking for short term benefits. Well, not everyone obviously. But what will be the incentive to produce said tech when it will just be grabbed by those who think in the short term and made their next tool or distraction? What is the incentive when your invention, your baby is bastardized by the short-sighted and made into some monster?

            I think it’s funny when anyone tries to tell me that military spending and research and tech is what brought us so many advancements in our current life. Well, all that tech research was funded decades ago on college campuses and conducted by men, women and children who thought the tech itself was useful and would provide more than the current benefits they provide to the public. But then it was taken away from them, specialized for warfare and classified for years. When it became obsolete for them, it was nothing like it was originally intended. And those who first developed the idea are now disenfranchised and cynical. So we will never realize the full glory of even the least interesting tech from 30 years ago… that we are using today.

            Giant corporations are proprietary. Don’t expect them to stand on the shoulders of giants unless those giants are both free and exclusive. So their tech, while advancing, is just another cynical half-effort.

            The good news is that we have this interweb thingy, and information flows freely and instantly through it. At least corporations can never take that away from us.

          • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            “This quote, ““whenever the majority learns they can vote for freebies paid for by the remaining producers things go to shit fast,”” paraphrased or not, is so very wrong. The majority gets squat out of about 80% of their representatives.”

            Even if you are correct, perception is reality to many. That’s all it takes to garner votes/power, and not just for 80%

            Headin’ out now…………….catch ya’ll later….think about what you’re gonna tell those youngsters.

            PS: “At least corporations can never take that away from us.” Yeah, I see what you did there.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Let’s start with the idea that regulation is better than laissez faire (or vice versa). My contention is that there is no such thing as a free market when given over to laissez faire. There is not even a glimmer of hope for such if even one bad actor exists. If one exists, then s/he is at an advantage that cannot be ignored by every other actor in the market. Then every other actor must do what the bad actor does in order to mitigate that advantage. Politicians are no different. If everyone was honest, then they wouldn’t take money from anyone except publicly sourced funds that we set up years ago to finance political campaigns.

            Agree completely, but the question is really do we trust a poorly appointed bureaucrat who is far removed from “the people” to regulate this, or is it a better idea to have an open economic system but with an engaged citizenry who (a) elects ‘good’ actors and (b) votes with their wallets/ballot box when there are ‘bad’ actors?

            (Obviously good/bad is a philosophical dilemma, so they get the quotes, but you understand the sentiment and how we’re using them in this discussion).

            Part of the problem is that citizens are acting on their incentives to “vote for free things”, as OldBeav said, rather than their incentive to protect their rights. If citizens followed their rights as closely as their bank accounts, mortgages, etc, they would vote differently with their ballots and their wallets. So we get what we deserve. But just because the outcome is bad, it doesn’t mean the original system is bad. When this all does collapse, I’d still take my chances with a Republic, Capitalism, and just pray next time the citizens are engaged and have a watchful eye. Why? Because I know the alternative (Socialism, over-regulation by asshats) cannot work. At least the former can work with engaged citizens, and it makes citizens sovereign — again, these are amazing rights and what we should be celebrating on July 4th, but most Americans will celebrate some notion from history class or the media, and they will celebrate the good burger they’re eating and brew they’re drinking, but few will celebrate or even once think about their rights, how unique it is for a citizen to have rights, and how to protect them. This is their stake in the game, and yet they don’t even know. I think this is a bigger problem, because the problems you describe of corrupt free market/politics goes away when people are engaged in protecting their rights. It goes away even more when those elected have to answer to citizens at the local level, which is why I mentioned earlier the more face-to-face/local politics the better.

            Giant corporations are proprietary.

            Actually that’s not true. I can think of many examples where it’s not true, but Elon Musk just opened up Tesla’s entire patent portfolio and encourages others to use them if they can solve the problems.

            Supply and demand are not a false dilemma.

            I think they are, because it’s not always one or the other, yet that’s how it’s presented.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I’d say that “regulation” would most simply be our wallets — if we don’t like a corporation we don’t buy their products, and they do get the death penalty. Does that make me in favor of “deregulation”, in the classic sense?

            That’s an interesting question. The short and long answers are both yes. But that’s because our wallets are already useless tools when there are no regulations. We can kill Wal-Mart, but then Target becomes Wal-Mart, and life goes on the same as before.

            When this country was founded, it was done so to escape corporate domination. The English crown was controlled by a corporation. It was actually written into law that corporation controlled their markets. That’s an extreme form of deregulation. But it’s similar to what we have now. An oligarchy controls everything. And when they make laws that appear to regulate themselves, it’s a distraction. They complain through the media they own about the law that they themselves wrote and create that false dilemma you spoke of. But it only passes with their consent. And it was written and passed only to regulate market entry. Anything that is considered regulation needs to be looked at with this cynical eye. Is it red tape created by the oligarchy in order to grab a larger share (or to solidify control) of the market? Or is it real?

            There once was real regulation intact. But the deregulation from the 80’s up to now have only been replaced with red tape proxies. And the new red tape was only created when the public realized they had been duped once again. Every single deregulation created a public cost. And each of them created privatized theft. The financial meltdowns are not the only ones that occurred. They’re just the most obvious. Think of how we are willfully poisoning ourselves in so many new ways, not just health-wise, but mentally as well.

            You said somewhere here that you believed a nation in debt cannot be great. I agree to a point. On the macro level, that debt is mostly all the deregulation we foisted upon ourselves. We gleefully raided trust funds in order to rack up all that debt. Now we hear those who so happily did all that complain that the trust funds are insoluble, which they are not. But they are insoluble if those who borrowed that money successfully erase their creditor. It’s too bad you and me and everyone in our country are their creditors. It’s worse that most of us don’t even realize that truth.

            On a micro level, we need to look at aggregate wealth. You and I talk of precautionary saving to mitigate uninsurable income uncertainty. But that’s all fluff and, frankly, boring. I’d be happy if the false dichotomy moved away from gross income and dabbled even a little bit in aggregate income. But what media outlet would risk the ire of their owners in order to bring light to even that insufficient topic? Unless Warren Buffett mentions it in passing while talking about capital gains tax rates years ago, nobody anywhere even pays attention to it, let alone wealth.

            Who owns what in this country? Do you own your house if you’re paying a mortgage? No. If you have paid off your house then go get a reverse mortgage (another bastard child of deregulation), do you own your house? Do you own your car? If you have credit card debt, do you own the chair you’re sitting on even though you paid for it free and clear? Do you even have a job that you can say you own?

            In a short term income view, of course you own all that stuff. But if your creditors called in all your debt today (and they can do so because of deregulation… no matter what you think you’ve signed), then you have nothing.

            Obviously, there are some people who can claim independence. When looking at the narrow income standard dilemma, the 1% make blah blah (I think 30% or thereabouts). That means there’s another 70% out there… right? Wrong. Look at it in real wealth. Who owns you? The 1% own almost 75% of all wealth in this country. And that’s when you discount equity on property debt in good standing. The overwhelming equity on such debt is owned by the 1% themselves… and owed to others within the 1%. So that’s a wash. But imagine what real wealth they would own if they convinced you to give them your equity.

            Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But let’s go back to something that used to exist in this country, pensions. Would we consider that our equity, placed there and realized after we retire? Somehow corporations convinced those equity holders to give it all up. And now those who once had equity no longer have it. Do you have an IRA or 401k? Do you like how the value of it rises and falls when the wind blows too hard? Even if you gain 7% (including employer match in that figure) every single year for 40 years, you are not realizing 70% of what you should end up with. Where does the 70% go? They call them fees. And just like they give you that neat chart about putting $50 per paycheck and how pretty it looks after that 40 years, they don’t show you the concurrent chart where you put that $50 into some stocks of your own choosing, forgoing their “expertise” and employer match. You lose out for trying to win.

            And that’s because they own you. They own you. They. Own. You.

            They own your house. They own your car. They own your job. They own your dog. And then they go on the news and tell you that you should be afraid of anyone who knows this and wants you to know it yourself. They own what you think too. They own you.

            So yeah… Merican exceptionalism is about as real and genuine to me as someone who thanks me for my service… with a straight face. Debt may be an issue in itself. But it’s more an indicator of what passes for reality. Nobody looks at the Florida Marlins and says, “The Marlins are the best baseball franchise in the world.” Why does nobody say that? Because people actually look at the culture and data of the organization before they say the words out loud.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Actually, you are mostly right, but you can own your house or car if you were smart enough to know your rights (as I keep mentioning) and get allodial title. Two States recognize allodial title for homes (I believe Nevada and Texas). But it’s hard to get that title. Most car dealerships won’t (or by law can’t) give up the MCO, which you need to get allodial title. But some people have found loopholes and do get it. Usually this involves buying it in a different State and importing it back into your State. With a home, you are more screwed. The most valuable part is obviously the land the home sits on, and a home “owner” will never own that short of allodial title with mineral/underground rights, which they will never get. So they own a bunch of rotting wood (a depreciating asset, that they are ironically told should always appreciate) that sits on someone else’s valuable land. The property tax is just rent to the State for the land use. They never own the asset that has actual value. Same with car registration, as you note — it’s rent to the State for the privilege of driving. This is why we want rights (allodial title = right to own the car) rather than privileges (registration card = privilege to drive the car that you and the State both own). Same with marriage licenses. Sad how everyone was celebrating the gay marriage rulings as a huge win when really those were just State issued privileges. A win would be having the right to marry whoever you want and not having to ask. Now that’s something to celebrate.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            That Target would become the next Walmart is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe it would, or maybe people would give Target the death penalty along with Walmart? Maybe Target would say, “shit, we don’t want to have the fate of Walmart” and preemptively change how they do business. I don’t see how you can know Target would become Walmart until it happens.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I leave these windows open for a while, jumpin back and forth while filling out text. So I just now saw your post timed 12:12pm. Example: time right now is 3:17pm.

            … but the question is really do we trust a poorly appointed bureaucrat who is far removed from “the people” to regulate this[?]

            In spades yes… to the alternative that even you present. There will never be an engaged and intelligent public. Germany comes close to half that ideal. And look how they regulate the shit out of every aspect of life. They make no apologies to their much more educated public. But they also act in that public’s interest. That it works hand-in-hand with corporations is a testament to something done right. Give that regulatory power over to the purchased Congress we have now? Holy hell no!

            If citizens followed their rights as closely as their bank accounts, mortgages, etc, they would vote differently with their ballots and their wallets.

            I would say people do so. In fact, I would say they do so more than they do their finances. That’s what their owners want them to do.

            Your post about allodial title is correct except for mineral rights, correctly called mineral estate. Gaining such depends on where you live, for the most part. But most people don’t know that, even with the Clean Water Exemption passed by idiot boy and his sheeple Congress for his cronies, the surface owner of property holds all rights to sand, gravel, limestone and subsurface water. I can’t wait until someone figures that out. If they come for my milkshake, I’m armed with their death.

            You can replace the names to protect the guilty if you want. Just look at the black market. That’s as laissez faire as you can get. If you kill bad actor A, bad actors B, C and D take over. And that’s literal. Why would you believe it would be any different if it were not literal, let alone bought?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            To clarify… I perceived poorly appointed bureaucrat who is far removed from “the people” to mean a surly DMV clerk or a public defense attorney or social worker overburdened with cases. If you meant the currently (mostly) purchased Congress, then I think I answered that as well. If you meant something different, then I missed your point.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            You said somewhere here that you believed a nation in debt cannot be great. I agree to a point. On the macro level, that debt is mostly all the deregulation we foisted upon ourselves. We gleefully raided trust funds in order to rack up all that debt.

            Where are you getting the figures? From everything I saw, foreign countries own 35% of our debt, the FED owns 5-6 trillion, which is about 33% (and as we know, citizens are on the hook for their losses), and independent citizens/hedge funds/pensions own the rest. When you talk about trust funds, are you talking about SS? I’m just confused on the numbers…

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Yes. SSI is our greatest creditor. Most of what the Fed holds is secondary debt related to this, purchased, if you will. But the Fed also answers to us in the end when it comes to this paper.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Another thing that angers me is the idea that te Fed isn’t government. They are only in existence because of law. And they only act according to law. That they went all Randian under Greenspan is a real problem. But it isn’t un-fixable. Every transaction they make is audited and reported. They then report everything quarterly. And then they are audited at the very least once biennially overall.

            So anyone who tells you something different is either lying or doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about. I tend to favor the former over the latter given my cynicism.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            This obviously speaks to the idea that the holding of debt is just a shell game. That’s a valid concern.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            The FED is rouge pseudo government…a hijack. It’s funny to look at charts of the dollar vs gold and how each went in opposite directions once the FED was enacted. Awful.

            Regarding their quarterly reports, those are being nitpicked, and many blogs have found that when QE(whatever # we’re on) ended, offshoots of bond buying sprung up in other countries. Just Google Federal Reserve Belgian Bonds. It would be hilarious. If it weren’t. Crazy. They also skirt questions/criticisms during hearings and say things like “if we answer that we’ll undermine the institution” (paraphrased) and just bizarre things like this, so they are definitely not audited. I don’t understand why anyone would defend the Federal Reserve. I also don’t understand why anyone would think a bureaucrat knows best for all. Which is weird, because we both seem to agree on rights and liberty. Yet I find your position that you want a bureaucrat telling people what to do polar opposite to that. I find it arrogant to think you, me, or a bureaucrat knows what is best for someone else. I also find there to be cognitive dissonance that needs resolution. Like, if you believe in liberty and freedom and these good things, then how do you believe that an elected person knows what’s best for someone, and how is believing that not in direct contrast with rights, liberty, etc?

            Anyway, this is a process. This Republic is about to fail barring a technological miracle, but instead turning to some other form of government, we should have a discussion of how and why this one went wrong. That process starts with people losing touch with their local govts and their voice, and it ends with control freaks doing what they do. My .02 generalization on that, but it’s much more complex obviously.

            And regarding the black market, someone will probably step up, but what you don’t see are all the people who step down. You are never going to regulate the human nature out of humans. If they want something on the black market they’ll get it somehow, no matter how much regulation. And why prevent them? Unless they are infringing on someone else’s rights, then what they are doing is probably moral. E.g. Drug trade on the black market. Does anyone think this is “wrong”? Only if they do drugs and then infringe on someone else. But if they sit in their home, who cares? For me everything comes down to rights. It took me years to think it all through. Once I got to that point, I found life and complex political issues to be very simple. If someone infringes on someone else’s rights or encourages others (e.g. govt) to infringe on peoples’ rights, then they’re an asshole. It could be for a host of reasons, but in the final analysis they’re an asshole. The rest is all noise.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Anything “Fed” related you bring up should have a Holden Caulfield quote along with it to make it that much more valid.

            Why is a bureaucrat not a bureaucrat when s/he works for a corporation? Why does s/he suddenly become something sacrosanct? And why does his or her loyalty to the public good become more secure because of the same?

            I think that’s a simple question that deserves a simple answer.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Okay… now that I see the rest of your post… must have been a lag on my end that only showed the first half of it….

            The Belgian “conspiracy” thingy was in the first half. But I chose to ignore that and preteend you knew that Russia and us really weren’t on the best of terms last year. And, newsflash, we haven’t made up yet. It was so out of character for Russia to dump our bonds when we broke up. I mean, we were so good to her. I guess it was just a stroke of luck that our good friend Belgium was around and managed to throw all that stuff in the back of his hoopty.

            Good guy that Belgium.

            Who the fuck came up with the conspiracy nuttery on that move? Was it Schiff again? I have to be honest. I gave up on that fucking moron seven years ago. But this sounds like him to a fucking nutsack tee… with a signed copy of Catcher in his pocket.

            He’s lucky he lives in a land where they don’t throw seriously stupid sentient beings in jail. He’d be in there with one of my cats. My other cat would be good, as would the dog. But that one cat… I don’t know what side of the bed is that wrong.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            It’s fallacy city tonight. Now we shoot Schiff via an Ad Hominem, even though he wasn’t the person who broke the Belgian bond story?

            I don’t know who first broke it. Probably zerohedge since they’re the only site watching the math. But Bloomberg and the Washington Times, among many other “mainstream/credible” news outlets picked up the story.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-27/china-hides-treasury-buys-in-belgium-chart-of-the-day

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/29/baffled-by-belgium-burst-of-us-bond-buying-raised-/?page=all

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            And don’t think I’m defending the Fed. I’m just trying to make sure we at least make clear who they are before I lambaste them for all the right reasons, not these weird conspiracy things (I’ve seen worse) involving something that is not only easily accessible via the interwebs. But it is also openly reporting everything that is somehow some mysterious thingy somewhere in gold bug’s mind… for everyone to see… in the open… if they chose to look for it.

            I know what it means to be cynical. I can argue that 1+1=1 with a straight face. But I can’t proof 1+1=nutjob. And neither can you, no matter what your totally sane sources say.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            That makes zero sense to bring up Catcher in the Rye, btw. First, it’s a great book, and 99.99999% of people who read it aren’t insane. But second, it’s a strawman and ad hominem. By bringing up the book and imply only nuts find Belgium being the 3rd largest holder of bonds to be odd, you make people defend their sanity, etc. The story here is that Belgium became the 3rd largest holder of bonds just months before the FED ‘ended’ QE.

            To answer your question about CEO sanctity: I didn’t know they had it? But anyway, it goes back to rights. If the CEO has a right to whatever they’re doing, then it’s fine. Why are they in a better position to be making decisions than a bureaucrat? That’s an easy one: they have incentive. They most likely have more knowledge, too. Show me a bureaucrat who’s ever created a job. That’s another problem…they are paper pushers, which is ultimately a net social loss. In China they dig holes and then refill them and call it productivity. That’s basically what a bureaucrat is.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            There was news to report. And it was reported by the fed, per law, after the fact. And it was all above board and saved our fucking asses. It was actually a brilliant move.

            So what the hell is the problem here? Is our central bank not supposed to act like our central bank? Is it supposed to go out and willy nilly whatever? Is it supposed to buy gold? Is that it?

            I mean, wtf man?

            There’s enough wrong with the Fed related to the deregulation of financial markets over the last 35 years that NOBODY has to make up this weird conspiracy garbage about them to make them look bad. All that does is shoot the messenger on sight. Because that is one fucked up false dilemma.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            And don’t think I’m defending the Fed.

            Well that’s good, because I was beginning to hurl in my mouth a little.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I think I told you how the bureaucrats kept me from buying land recently? Nice piece of land in Ventura County, but while at the property the landowner slipped and said the inspectors were by ever week or so nitpicking (fined him 6k for not having his sandbags close enough to the river).

            I remember leaving there knowing I’d never talk to the realtor or that landowner again. I did write the realtor and told her that with that type of policy, the County will only get extremely wealthy people who don’t care about fines, and wished her good luck selling that land. It’s still on the market, btw.

            So yeah, the paper pushers can come out and destroy economic activity all they want, but I’m going to act [or in this case not act] on those dis-incentives. If the County left people alone, there would be a large sale of land, we’d be living there, raising animals, supporting all the local shops, etc. As it stands, the land is sitting vacant with an owner who pays the State taxes….

            The amount of economic activity that’s was lost is mind-boggling.

            And don’t even get me started on my latest experience with TSA bureaucrats.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            You know… I’ve been around this webby thingy for a log while. I suspect you also have been so. You seem surprised every time I throw a label on you for something you say. But the things you say are very common among Birchers, gold bugs and separatists. Note that I’ve never called you the latter.

            Before the interwebs came along, this Fed conspiracy garbage was a standard Bircher greeting. Aforementioned meat-salesmen-equivalents are now out there getting mucho money by scaring people who would know more than them if they bothered to actually look into the issue they distort.

            Gotta love this country.

            But then, if that distraction wasn’t happening… if right-minded people weren’t looking at these bonkers and wondering what the fuck is wrong with the American education system, then might they actually spend some time looking at what the free marketeers have done to the Fed?

            Hint: Nothing happens at the Fed or changes at the Fed unless Congress says so. There are emergency situations where they can act then tell Congress all about it over pillow talk. But everything they do has Congress’ stamp of approval. POTUS can direct them if POTUS had the fucking balls. Haven’t seen that since Carter. So never mind on that angle. There have been subtle moves here and there directed by the executive. But Congress runs the Fed, always has, always will.

            Remember that the next time some Congressman stands up and rails against the Fed for whatever bullshit reason he makes up just to scare people. Watching CSpan years ago, I would see that some of them actually spoke to things the Fed really did. But most of those con men just lied… on record… or spoke to jibber jabber whatever.

            Contract With America my ass. Term limits my ass. Repealing 2AAA my ass.

            Excuse me if I don’t buy what they all sell. But don’t make up shit and try to sell me on that either.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Jack, how about a little experiment? Tomorrow go through your day and list each corporate product you use?

            For example, I’m working on a record tonight and using about 20 different pieces of gear, none of which possible without corporations. For dinner we used about 10 more corporate products.

            Maybe make a list of them so you can see how life changing capitalism is, because for some reason you hate it. Life would be awful without it. Imagine a world of Bureaucrats and no capitalism? Holy shit that is horrific.

            Anyway, I challenge you to make this list and report back with your findings. I’ll do the same and tell you how many bureaucrats I run into tomorrow, and I’ll put a gold star next to any if they actually improve life, even if it’s in the most miniscule way.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I’m not a Bircher or gold bug.

            If anything I’m close to anarchist, buddy. But not really…

            The way I run the blog is the way I run my life. Anything goes, and everyone out of the way, as we move toward an objective truth. That’s it. Nothing more. Do I fail sometimes? Yeah, but that’s the process (self-criticism/correcting it), and I fail less today than yesterday.

            I’m obsessed with rights.

            Now go ahead and make some label for all that, box me in, call me a name, and feel good for shaming me. I know the tactic well. I didn’t appreciate being called Holden Caulfield and all implied with that, as you know well, as that was your intention.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Okay… I miss a lot when I’m away from here but keep this window open. Time now: 12:10 am.

            Yes. It is completely fair to bring up Catcher when also talking about Fed conspiracy theories. You are correct. It is a great book. It should even be read in the places that ban it, the places where these conspiracies are born and fester.

            Before I was born, the Birchers made up the Fed conspiracy theory. It sounded one way then. It sounds precisely the same today. It has always sounded the same. I should know. My grandfather is a Bircher who is in GREAT standing. He’s also a former CIA operative who has no fucking clue what it means to be an American. Don’t tell anyone I told you that. He didn’t tell me. But years of, “that’s classified” in the middle of stories about fucking the locals in foreign lands kinda gets one to wonder. And I eventually FOIA’d his ass… without him knowing… because it’s classified and shit.

            He now hobnobs with other old rich white men and sends out FB messages about how much better this country would be if we had a monarchy that was pasty white like England’s monarchy (I shit you not). Yup… Patriot just said that shit!

            So stop for once and look at your sources. The data may be real, but it’s not like it’s hidden. It’s only hidden from those who don’t look for it. And the translation of said data should be left to someone other than nutjobs with 100% certainty of stupidity (I don’t know where you get 99.99%… far too low).

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            That’s interesting that your grandfather was a Bircher, but it doesn’t make me one. Maybe you’re overly sensitive/biased?

            Like the first sign someone shows of being a Bircher you pounce? Do you think that’s possible?

            Also, why does everything have to be about intelligence? I feel like this is where your love for regulation comes from — this idea that you know more than everyone else, even to the point you know what is best for them. Am I wrong? Be honest/self-critical here.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Maybe make a list of them so you can see how life changing capitalism is, because for some reason you hate it.

            Really? Is there only one extreme or another? Does the very real truth that our founding fathers mistrusted corporations so much that they not only revolted against one, but then made the law say that they must prove on an annual basis that they provide a public good beyond their business mean nothing in this conversation? Does that mean a hatred of capitalism must ensue?

            I don’t know why you conflate a CEO with a bureaucrat. I was thinking you meant worker bees. People with actual power are not bureaucrats in either public or private structures. Bureaucrats are just the people who clock in and work by the rules, and only by the rules, day after day after day. Not sure where the CEO comes up.

            But hey! Maybe Donald Trump can be our next Bureaucrat in Chief. He doesn’t even have to stack up all the IOUs. That’s already done. All he has to do is what he does best, declare bankruptcy and fuck every single honest person who built his empire.

            If only a real “bureaucrat” had that savvy. maybe we could hold our heads higher when talking about representatives of other Congressional districts… and presidents who say something different than whatever “news” outlet says

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I’m not at the extreme when it comes to corporations. I just feel like you are at the other extreme (in your disdain), so I’m trying to point out the good. You seem to think regulation will cure all, and seem to blame everything on corporations. I don’t understand how regulation could create free or prosperous people, and I never will, so maybe we should leave it at that. I’m willing to listen if you want to outline the path to prosperity. If you write a manifesto, I’d read it.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            That’s interesting that your grandfather was a Bircher, but it doesn’t make me one. Maybe you’re overly sensitive/biased?

            It’s really not that interesting. But what it became was a broken record, one you seem to be intent on playing… note for note… without fear… I’ll give you that… but note for fucking note… on replay like it has always been.

            I’m not here to push buttons tonight. Labels aren’t what I call you. They’re what you place upon yourself by using the precise words and ideas of certain well known institutions that have used the very same precise words and ideas for almost 80 years.

            All you have left is to decry the founding fathers’ poor judgement for including Article V.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            I’m an anti-authority asshole who loves truth and freedom. If that’s what a Bircher is, then I’m a Bircher, and proud of it. Short of that, I don’t know what else to say about Birchers or your conclusions. Goodnight, buddy.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            I understand being cynical of authority. But you claim to be working toward truth and freedom while denying yourself both? I guess you haven’t claimed that the Fed is owned or controlled by the Rothschild family. And you haven’t complained about the CFR and the UN taking away our rights in some NWO conspiracy talk… oh, and water fluoridation. So you have been short on a couple whackadoodle Bircher ideas, making you most likely not one.

            But you can’t go all gold-bug/Fed-Bircher rhetoric (word for word) and expect to be called sane. Even a cursory look at the Fed website should give you enough info for you to say, “Wtf was I thinking?” I watch the HH sessions with Congress, and I wonder how the holy hell some of those buffoons manage to get their penny loafers on in the morning. I can tell you precisely how the next one will go. The chairman will give a lengthy report with a lot of detailed information. Then a dozen failed car salesmen (and/or women) will look at her like she just ate a turkey sandwich. And then they’ll say they don’t like anything that isn’t both made by their moms and has apple pie in it. So any sandwich which is not an apple pie sandwich made by their moms needs to be audited by them… oh look… squirrel.

            The arguments you make against the Fed are not borne of truth-seeking. They are borne of “Central Bank Bad” conspiracy nutteries. It doesn’t help that they’ve moved the country’s fiscal policies so far away from Keynesian thought and so near the deregulated utopia Rand called for in her awkward, poorly penned and lunatic writings. It sucks because the need for a central bank is constant where no other regulation exists. But that’s the bathwater. You don’t seriously want the baby to go too?

            I find it funny that the anarcho-capitalists who put us in this position with deregulation are now revolting against the same ideologies they want to re-implement. It’s truly a bizarre circus of misinformed individuals peeing into the wind.

            But again, this is all distraction anyway. It’s a boring rehash of old tropes. We should be railing against TPP instead. That’s a much more interesting subject.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Jack, I’ll go through each one so we’re crystal clear moving forward:

            1. I’m not a gold bug. The reason I like gold, is that it is anti-authority. If a govt is going to try to force me into cash, that they then debase, then I’m going to gravitate away from that. I also collect guitars. It’s not just gold. It’s anything that isn’t cash. Does that make sense? To me it’s an anti-authority/pro-freedom/punk rock move to go into gold when an entity is trying to force me into currency or specific assets they deem you should own.

            2. Yes, I hate the FED. The reason is simple: I work hard and worked hard in the past, and the value of my labor does not deserve to be debased or redistributed to anyone else. This is an issue with rights. In this case, common law theft, but also 5th amendment. “No person …..{shall be} deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” A CB circumvents this by inflating. This is “regulatory taking”. Therefore, yes, I hate CBs. They devalue my property (my body/labor) without compensation. But further, the FED a centralized power, and I am anti-authority, and definitely anti-centralized power. Do these reasons make sense?

            If you need me to explain any others just let me know. And a lot of your rhetoric sounds straight out of liberal camp, if not Marxist. It’s not like it’s original to bag on corporations and beg for regulation.

            I think (?) we both want the same thing: free people, rights, etc? Maybe not. But I think so. I want it via an involved citizenry. I’m not sure how you want it, because you keep saying regulation…as if that will create anything good. I know you think you’re a genius and know everything, and you do know a lot, but this is precisely your flaw: you think that because you know some “facts” (I’d be skeptical of any Fed or govt reported numbers and hardly call them facts, but that’s your prerogative), that you are in a position to be telling people what they should think and do. This is a very liberal thing to do, which is why I called out your obvious “shaming” (again, very liberal thing) with the Holden Caufield insults, “nuttery”, shoot the messenger and shame them type of crap. These are all manipulative tactics that liberals love. What I asked is for you to show me how a centrally planned economy with bureaucrats leads to prosperity and citizens who have rights, specifically over long periods of time. If this is in fact what you believe. Again, you speak in riddles so I don’t know. But there are elements of Marxism/communism and anti-corporation in all your rants. You seem to believe that since you are smart, everyone else is dumb. You call people dumb a lot. It implies you’re a mini dictator, and by that I mean that, it seems, from what you write here, that “if only Jack could tell people what to do, everyone would be better.” Well, let people do what they want. They are sovereign and are free to error and free to learn from it and free to correct the error next time. They don’t need someone telling them what to think, do, how they should feel, etc. It’s a process for everyone.

            3. I’m not pro or anti corporation. They do some amazing things (like allow me to record a studio quality record in my home, make great meals, express, create, leisure, etc). They also do some awful things, such as pollute, etc. It’s a double edged sword. If you’re angry that they buy politicians, than yeah, but nobody has a gun to the politician’s head. Again, better citizens who vote in better people. How do Birchers feel about corporations? I’d imagine they love them. But I know shit about Birchers, and nor do I care to read about them.

            I’m my own man, buddy. The way I run this blog is the way I run my life. This blog is anti-authority. It sprang up from Blitz censorship, and I denied placing ads because I didn’t want any obligation to anyone. Once you place ads, you might have to curtail or tailor what you write. Most bloggers would be monetizing the shit out of this site. Here and there I ask for a donation to help with hosting. You see enough actions here to know what I am, but I’ve also explained a lot. You just don’t want to believe it because your grandfather has scarred you (? maybe? you never answered that) and turned you into his polar opposite where you just hate anything that overlaps with those ideas.

            4. Finally, let’s be clear: two people or groups can come to the same conclusion (e.g. gold is good), but for entirely different reasons. In my case, it’s an anti-authority thing to do. I feel the same when I buy a guitar or any other asset the govt can’t debase. It’s not just gold. But back to the point: a Bircher might like gold for some other reason. But we can both come to the same conclusion that we like gold or guitars or anything else, but for entirely different reasons. That’s why, while you believe you are a know-it-all genius (and I do think you are smart and respect you for examining everything, actually, while most people on this blog hate you), you have blind spots in logic. Sorry. But on a Venn Diagram, you can have me on the left, Birchers on the right, and an overlap of us both liking gold in the center. It doesn’t mean I am a Bircher. This is a HUGE logical problem…a real jump to conclusions. A failure to see that two paths can lead to a similar conclusion for entirely different reasons.

            And for the record, I post on ZH specifically to make fun of the bunker-dwelling Rothchild idiots. 90% of my comments there make fun of those people, along with the gold bugs who claim “only paper gold is falling in price” lololol.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            You have a lot of mixed messages in here. But that’s why what I say must sound like riddles sometimes. I just don’t know what analogy I can make to show how the language, terminology and ideas used make people sound like they’re coming from a certain bias. In the case of econ, I listen to people from the Austrian school, and I hear this pseudo-econ language that sounds like positivism to me… railing against non-positivist thought and calling it Marxist (who was another nutter butter btw), another very positivist commentary with simply a different end.

            Talking monetary policy concerning the Fed and fiat can be productive if using the correct terminology. But gold-bugs have their own language and ideas. They start with a valid critique, turn it into a fallacy, then offer no solutions other than an insistence that what has never ever worked will suddenly just magically work.

            In terms of importance, it’s like talking about Western religion pros and cons, then someone starts attacking the Catholic church’s practice of confession. They say they could never trust a priest with their secrets because all priests are agents of Xenu. They could never understand what engrams are dredged up by an e-meter during an audit because they can’t understand the depth of a person’s thetans. I’m going to look at that and just wonder what the hell that person is talking about and why they think it’s a valid argument for the discussion as a whole.

            That’s a simplistic analogy. But that’s how I feel when I read anything from a positivist. Again, not trying to pigeon-hole you here. That’s just the language I see.

            Ftr, Marx was a better critic of capitalism than Menger or Spencer were proponents. Menger’s marginalism was an infantile view which tried to, as positivists are wont to do, change the terminology for the benefit of his biases. It tried and miserably failed to define value as a component of only utility. Just look at the value of gold, for a nice little segue. It is valued far above it’s utility. It actually hangs around a value where it is profitable for the producers. Its value is a direct result of labor, scarcity and demand. And when one of those is out of equilibrium, its value is subject to wild swings. It is, in fact, a form of fiat money. Smokes/drugs/toilet liquor are fiat money in prison (stereotyping there simply for the sake of the point). I don’t know about guitars. I’m sure within a very select group they could be considered so. But they are not widely accepted as such.

            As far as what I believe is the correct way of thinking economically, I would probably most align with EF Schumacher. But I wouldn’t go so far as to completely dismiss materialism completely, as Ghandi did. Ghandi went so far as to dismiss materialism in any form. At least he walked his talk. And he supplanted rights with duties as if they were mutually exclusive. I disagree on that point (the exclusivity part). But I agree with both men that sustainable production within local communities using local resources is the most ideal form of economic equilibrium. The further the means of production and resources are removed from the consumer, the less it should be trusted to provide what its market value says it should provide. And it allows for the destruction of a local economy and its resources when they give over their resources for production slated for wide distribution. And I believe that the necessities of the public should be provided to the public at the least cost possible. Why would I trust a bureaucrat more than a corporation to do that? I think you missed on that question. A bureaucrat would be a worker bee in a large group. They exist in business just like they do in government. But those in government are bound by law, regulated and working for a group without a profit motive. I think you wanted to say autocrat, which would be the bigwig type. They are the ones most susceptible to corruption. But that corruption has to come from somewhere. So I must assume that business is exactly the same when we speak of gigantism. Bigger is just not better. In fact, the individual disappears in either case. There is simply no difference between the two except that one takes a certain percentage off the top (legally) from the get go.

            If you want a better explanation of where I’m coming from on that, find and read some Burton Weisbrod, “The more we reward those things that we can measure, and not reward the things we care about but don’t measure, the more we will distort behavior.”

            This is where the positivists fail on both sides, the “individualists” and the “collectivists.” Perhaps the only brilliant thought that came out of either school was that of Marx in his critique of the individualists and capitalism. He said unchecked capitalism would, instead of giving rise to the individual by way of freedom, would lead to bourgeois (see… positivists and how they change language for their own biases) collectivism and class stratification. He then went on to a weird resolution to this supposedly unsustainable economic form. But I have to give him credit for being right about that one thing. Individualists work against their own long run benefit and end up with precisely that which they think they are against… without fail.

            Marx was not really brilliant on this. He was just the first to be right on a rudimentary level. If you want better explanations of why this form fails (and has failed here since 1968) find and read critiques by Keynes and Minsky. There was a reason it took a whole generation for the monetarists to put aside those two, just like there was a reason the individualist neo-liberals took another generation beyond that to wriggle their way into monetarist machinery and start throwing wrenches around. And even funnier is that the latter distort the former’s legacy in order to confuse a woefully uninformed public.

            So when I speak of my duties and rights not being mutually exclusive, I speak very broadly. I do agree that an enlightened public would help greatly. But I don’t count on it until the business of education no longer becomes a business. There’s a Catch-22 for you. Much of the reason I understand this all is because I had to study it. I always wondered why I was sifting through some of the muddy garbage of positivism when it so clearly was not viable. Then I got into the real world and found out there were a lot of smart people thinking this really dumb stuff made sense. Then I decided to get into construction instead. I know I gave up vast gobs of money when I made that decision. But at least I’m happy… when I most definitely would not have been so in that world.

            Let’s look at rights and social duty in terms of health care. I have the right to be healthy. Or I have the right to be a slovenly, sickly member of society. Let’s assume I’m informed. I think you’re saying I would make good decisions which lead me to be healthy and productive. It doesn’t work that way for so many different reasons. I would agree, as said above, it would mitigate the problem. But it just will never happen, no matter how enlightened the public is. And then there’s the question of methods for enlightening said public. I would say that biannual visits to the doctor are the best way to remain informed. And I would wish to grant that to everyone else.

            But I wish to do that because I’m selfish, and I want the rest of the public to be healthy. I don’t want my neighbors to be sick while I talk to them out in the driveway. I don’t want their kids to be sick while sitting in a desk next to my kid. Don’t I have a right to not have illness thrust upon me in these ways? I certainly don’t try and do that to them. And even better, now that it has been forced upon me by someone who had a “right” to be sick if they want, I get to go to the doctor for an unscheduled visit where I meet more people who have a right to be sick if they want… or their victims. Now I’m spending my money and time, and wasted efforts to remain healthy, waiting to see if I have to spend more of my money on pills of some kind… all because someone else had a “right” to choose to be unhealthy. In doing so, hasn’t that person infringed on my rights? Isn’t it his social duty to choose to be healthy instead? And wouldn’t he be happier in the end whether he knows it or not? The last one is a gross assumption, but one that would probably be true for about 90% of the now unhealthy. Still, it’s specious. Anyway, my right to be healthy and my social duty to be healthy mesh completely in this instance. And I believe it should be mandated as a matter of all our rights to be healthy that everyone do so themselves.

            I guess we could get into a Constitutional discussion from here about what rights are actually granted involving health. My answer would be that I lose my property because of others’ decisions. Unfortunately, the Constitution also says nothing about (nor does it guarantee as a right) the ownership of property. So that in itself would be a fun discussion IMO.

            And if I’m polemic, sometimes it’s just quicker. I can make long, drawn out and thoughtful comments which say the same thing in less abrasive words. And they would be insufficient and wasteful at times. Sometimes being polemic against polemic thought is the proper answer.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Is it bad that it starts off about right then devolves into whackadoodle-ville? And is it also bad that this dude doesn’t know one-tenth of how devious we as a Western Hemisphere controlling power really are?

      I have a response to each bullet point. Almost every one is,”Dude is loony because….”

      And the because is more often than not worse, but more reasonable than, the wacky wtf rationale this guy pushes.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        I mean, war on terror is the CIA’s way to run drugs? I’m pretty sure Air America existed long before idiot boy uttered the words, “Heh heh, terrorism… heh… it’s bad. See, life is like a banana, and we need to beat terrorism… heh heh… because terrorism is bad. And it’s a bad thing. Who wants six gin fizzes… um… to choke on a peanut? Heh heh… terrorism bad.”

        Give me a break. Drugs is why you worry? Guns mean nothing? Human trafficking means nothing?

        Go fuck yourself until you get a friggin’ perspective on what really goes on in this world you pig with a duck brain.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

        I can’t stand Right/Left crap. Those terms are so dated and lame. Everyone knows it’s all the same. We need people to start voting for alternative candidates. Even if those candidates lose, it sends the message that people want candidates more like that person, whomever it may be. There’s some bias/phenomena where nobody wants to “waste a vote” on a loser, and it needs to change, because they are wasting votes on crap, which is even worse.

        The best options are NOT Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush (so sad these are the parties best ideas). In fact, they are probably two of the worst. Nor are they the only options. Use your write in votes or vote for a 3rd party/indie who you actually like. Vote for someone who has a backbone. That’s my advice.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          You’re confusing the issue. What is currently construed in the media as right/left is actually bonkers/right.

          There is no left. Unless you look at Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich and think that those guys are the leaders of a large, like-minded group… then you are kidding yourself. Obama? He’s a fucking right wing conservative to the hilt. He’s so Chicago school that the White House could move to the Windy City and not miss a beat.

          Fucking Friedmanites don’t even know why you’re wrong because the very fundamentals of your ideas are so fucking wrong so as to throw off everything beyond just the simple econ of a situation. And soft s/d economists have tailored their message to follow the prevalent garbage that was first monetarist then supply side (whatever the fuck that is… besides a fucking con… because it is about as real to econ as “yeah, we don’t think evolution exists, so ID,” is to biology.

          I don’t think anyone bites… because they think that science and economics are “political.” I get it. People are stupid beyond belief in this country. And saying things like that makes their hearts hurt and their tear ducts well with liquid. And we can’t have that, because we are the greatest country on earth.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            *pretty sure I missed a close parenthesis in there.

        • RanYakumo RanYakumo says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          That’s what I did in my first presidential election I could vote in. Voted for the Libertarian guy because I found Romney and Obama repulsive.

          If Jeb and Hillary end up being their party nominees, I’ll do the same, or do a write-in vote for my dog. She wouldn’t do anything, but at least she wouldn’t do anything stupid either.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Good man.

          • OSAlum94 OSAlum94 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Wow, It’s amazing how one statement can ignite the conversation in a blog. When I wrote “this country is still great” my point was to encourage and compliment Angry. That he has a great blog here and that if he wants to get media credentials or build his blog and gain better acceptance that there are still many opportunities out there. The days of a guy starting a computer business in his garage and changing the world are not gone. We can still build businesses in this country. There are still rags to riches stories out there. If he wants a media credential, then he should be able to get one if he sets his mind to it.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            That was just a seed. The whackadoodle list above with all the half-wit (and a couple correct) bullet points is what set this one off.

            There really are not the same rags to riches stories there were 50 years ago. That has decreased over the last 35 years so that the flow of people up and down the spectrum of wealth and prosperity is negative. Apparently a rising tide makes rivers flow backward… well beyond tidewater… making previously healthy freshwater ecosystems a dying brackish mess.

            But hey! There’s always the exception to the rule. But luck (not hard work, intelligence or innovation) is now the denominator for that exception now.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            *now

            **still now

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            DogYakumo 2016! For America!

        • Just Dansen says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          I couldn’t agree more. Except, unfortunately, there are far too many people that still buy into the “Left vs. Right” narrative. I’ve had conversations about this with several people, and only a handful realize this, while the rest get defensive and try really hard to provide evidence to support the narrative.

          I’m disappointed Bernie Sanders is running as a Democrat instead of an Independent, but then again, I can see that he probably realizes that the bulk of Americans aren’t going to vote for someone outside of the two main affiliations. But I’d much rather he beat out Hilary. I really don’t want it to come down to Bush and Clinton, otherwise we’re solidifying ourselves as a dual monarchy.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            there are far too many people that still buy into the “Left vs. Right” narrative

            When someone makes the argument about that, they are essentially making the argument about them winning or them being right. Attorneys do this, too. Do they want to win, or do they want justice? Most just want to win, even at the expense of justice. The debate should be “who is best suited to protect my Sovereign rights”, because without those rights, it doesn’t matter what’s in the bank account — everything will be taken — nor does much else matter. Next election should be as boring as the last, only with people spewing more vitriol than ever at all the wrong people and places. Look in the mirror, peeps. Just like Beaver fans had to eventually look in the mirror and admit they were perpetuating Riley by fearing change, accepting his glaring inadequacy, and making excuses for him. It’s hard to do, but it’s worth it.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Nothing to contend here.

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    I think the false dilemma is a huge problem in the media. We are constantly framed as having only two choices, when we have many more. This isn’t just politics but everything. Fallacies should be taught, either by parents or in school. You realize how much bullshit there is once you read a book on fallacies. And you also realize how vulnerable you are to them, even if you’re smart. It really has nothing to do with intelligence or lack of.

  • scotty says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    “It’s a better place to be when there are expectations.” – Mike Riley

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/huskers-riley-expectations-osborne-nice-guy-persona-194516329–ncaaf.html

    Maybe, but to read him say that is ironic (for real, not morrisette ironic?)

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

      Oh man, is that a jab?
      I guess he never heard of creating your own expectations.

      • scotty says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        I’ve coached in the NFL, and they all want to win the Super Bowl. I’ve coached in the Pac-12, and they all want to win the Pac-12. I understand it. Expectations actually are a positive to me because when I went to Oregon State in 1997, there were none. Twenty-eight straight losing seasons, really bad facilities. It was kind of scary. It’s a better place to be when there are expectations.”

        Lolz 🙂

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Riley is getting more and more bizarre.

          He sounds like a guy rambling on a job interview or a guy trying to justify his resume/being hired. Riley thriving under expectations (lol)…

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

          Um… sorry Mikey. When you got to OSU, it was only 26 straight losing seasons. When you ditched OSU the first time, then it was 28 straight losing seasons… and still bad facilities with no plan for making them better.

          And that all changed as soon as you left… all of it.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Lol, he doesn’t even realize he contributed 2 of those losing seasons. Good catch, Jack.

            And yes, it changed after he left, and it will change again after he left this time…

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            And never mind that Pollyanna railed against us with gnarly snaggle-teeth for years on end because all we wanted was to make expectations a real thing. But no. Apparently Riley gets to riff off Pollyanna’s short-comings at our expense.

            Mikey can go fuck himself now. I also hope NU fans know what it’s like to not only lose to a 1AA team, but to expect to lose to the next one because they are certain that their DC is really that bad and always has been. Count me in on the hate front. I wanted to be happily forgetful of a mediocre time in our history. Now I have to go all schadenfreude with NU.

            You know… I could post on their boards. That would show them.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I don’t know Bo.

      Worth reading that pile of brown-nosing just to get that nugget.

      It will also be interesting to see what Jovan does to Tebow after this article.

  • hellobeavers says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    This thread is starting to read like the comments section on Huffington Post.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

      So don’t read it? You have rights on AB, buddy. You have the right to not read it or tell me to fuck off. AB was derived from Mamma Machado’s tyranny!

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Fuck off… or don’t.

        I didn’t even know HuffPo had a comments section. I’m guessing some of those who comment there are paid more than the writers on HuffPo specifically for their comments.

        Well… I’m not guessing. That it has enough sway as an aggregate news source tells me that there are paid hacks who do comment on the site. I’ve actually met a couple of these people. They make good money aside from their day jobs. One of them is the chef (and owner) of a very good restaurant on the north end of the 1 in Malibu… just before the cliff. I highly suggest stopping in there for food if you’re in the area. I met him because he’s a friend of another OSU grad who is a friend of mine. They are apparently members of some horsey-riding summer camp group down there that has a bunch of well known people in it.

      • Hellobeavers says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Why can’t I read it? It’s hard to divert your attention from crazy. The conspiracy theories from Jack and Mud & Sticks, I believe… Holy shit.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          I didn’t say you can’t read it.

          “So don’t read it” means if you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it.

          If you like it, then read it.

          Ya follow?

          Yeah, shit is getting nuts. Jack speaks in riddles, so I have no clue what he thinks about anything. I just know he is labeling me and trying to pigeon hole me into something he understands so he can bash/shame it. Yet, on the flip-side, he never explicitly says what he believes, or if he does, I’d have to whip out the freakin’ Rosetta Stone to translate the mystery.

  • G Joubert says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    When you get a little older you’ll come to see and realize 7 years ago is less than the blink of an eye.

  • beavblazer beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Another Florida decommits/flip. Byrd has flown to FIU. Guess the cross country pipeline has it’s limitations when a kid wants to stay close to home and play in Conference USA vs playing for a P5 school 3K miles away.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Think about that one. Is he a plan B? Has he been told that plan A is in, and he can’t come?

      I say that because I don’t want to say that anything he has done personally has taken away this opportunity. And I lean toward him being smart enough not to have done so because he still has a great opportunity to go to school for free.

      Good luck to him, and I hope he proves everyone wrong.

      • beavblazer beavblazer says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        That’s 2 florida DB’s who have decommitted from this class, and it’s pretty early still. Seems too early to be telling a guy plan A is a sure thing. Winder if Thomas going Juco affected his decision? He was the reason Byrd committed to OSU in the first place. Maybe Thomas doesnt see himself coming to OSU after a year of JUCO ball?

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      What can you do? It’s the risk of recruiting Nationally and early. There’s a lot of time and distance to overcome.

  • beavblazer beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I’m curious what Ft Lauderdale LB recruit Dallas Jaenty is up to. Was thought to be an oregon state lean at one time, but committed to Wisconsin shortly after they offered last month. Lately he’s been trying to get some other Oregon State targets to follow him on twitter. Recently he reached out to Eletise, and today I see him reaching out to Byrd shortly after Byrd de-committed. Wonder if talking to Wisconsin guys about GA has given him some ammo to go in and try to sway some of our recruits away from OSU?

  • Recruiting Updates

  • Categories

  • Archives