[Editor’s Note: Today we have a guest entry from Brandon Brewer, who’s going to enlighten us on an interesting statistical metric. ”” PL]
By Brandon Brewer
I’m very interested in names. I love finding out how people get them, what they mean, and how they look in print. Watching a lot of baseball throughout the season fuels this hobby of mine. Seeing the NOBs for each player on the field dozens of times, one can start seeing patterns. For example, as my wife has heard me say many times while I’m watching a game, it seems like every team has a Cabrera or a Davis. I’m probably keyed in to those NOBs more than others from watching Tribe games (lots of match-ups consisting of Detroit’s Miggy and Cleveland’s Asdrubal), and because my wife’s maiden name is Davis — and, well, because there really are a lot of Cabreras and Davises playing in the majors at the moment.
I determined that by going through the rosters of every MLB team to find the most frequently occurring NOBs. I left out the Yankees, because they don’t wear NOBs, and surnames connected to the Giants and Red Sox have asterisks, because those teams only wear NOBs on the road. With those ground rules in mind, here are the most commonly occurring MLB NOBs as of right now, ranked by frequency, with the number of players shown in parenthesis:
1. Garcia (7)
XXPerez (7)
3. Ramirez* (6)
4. Sanchez* (5)
XXDavis (5)
XXGonzalez (5)
XXHerrera (5)
XXJohnson (5)
9. Martin (4)
XXRodriguez (4)
XXWilson (4)
XXAlvarez (4)
XXCabrera (4)
XXCastro (4)
XXEscobar (4)
XXMartinez (4)
XXPeralta (4)
XXSmith (4)
Individually, this list may not look like all that much, but it represents 85 players sharing 18 surnames in a league that only has 725 players at any given time (again, Yankees omitted). They could fill three complete rosters, with players to spare.
According to the most recent U.S. Census data on surnames, most of the names on this list are proportionate, give or take, to their presence in the general population (Smith, Johnson, Davis, Garcia and Rodriguez are all in the top ten), so it isn’t surprising to see them stitched onto the backs of uniforms. Still, there are a few outliers: Escobar is only the 723rd-most popular surname in America; Peralta doesn’t even crack the top 1,000. Cabrera? 524th.
Players with these surnames are, more or less, evenly divided between the American and National leagues. The Tigers have the most players with the common names, at seven (two Martinezes and one each of a Sanchez, Wilson, Perez and, of course, a Cabrera and a Davis.
Only two MLB teams don’t to have any of the above-listed names on their rosters: the Reds and the Padres, so you could argue that those teams have some of the most diverse teams in the game, at least as measured by their NOBs. Interestingly, the Reds have Burke Badenhop and the Padres have Kevin Quackenbush, two very unique NOBs that are unlikely to be duplicated by another player anytime soon.
’Skins Watch: Good article/quiz to see if you can tell the difference between defenders of the ’Skins name and defenders of the Confederate battle flag (from Tommy Turner). ”¦ Meanwhile, here’s the latest article suggesting that the movement to de-emphasize the rebel flag may help the fight against the ’Skins name. ”¦ The United Church of Christ has called for a boycott of ’Skins games and merch until the team’s name is changed. They want the Indians to change their name and logo as well. ”¦ The Obama administration is opposed to the ’Skins returning to DC as long as the team’s name remains unchanged (from Tommy Turner).
Baseball News: Longtime Uni Watch pal and Reds beat reporter C. Trent Rosecrans talked to Reds OF Billy Hamilton about why Hamilton wore stirrups the other day. ”¦ Looks like the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers have a rival in the “most pandering” category (thanks, Phil). ”¦ More bad civics, this time from the Tulsa Drillers, whose for tomorrow shows the preamble to the Constitution, even though July 4th celebrates the ratification of the Declaration of Independence. Sales of the game-worn jerseys will benefit — of course — a military charity. Sigh (from Nathan Harvill). ”¦ Always sadly ironic when a team called the Indians — the Indianapolis Indians, in this case — wraps itself in the flag (from Drew Donovan). ”¦ This is pretty great: the best bespectacled ballplayers of 1985 (from Brian Mazmanian). ”¦ It’s a little late to be publishing an article about how today’s tickets aren’t as satisfying as old-style cardstock stubs — like, no duh — but at least the piece is well-written. ”¦ Marlins 1B Justin Bohr has so much pine tar on his helmet that the logo has pretty much vanished (from Justice C). ”¦ Grateful Dead jerseys upcoming for the Colorado Spring Sky Sox (from Nathan Wadman). ”¦ Seinfeld jerseys this Sunday for the Brooklyn Cyclones (from Christopher Warren).
College Football News: Here’s a really nice 1973 Rose Bowl poster (from Douglas Ford). ”¦ New gloves for Nebraska and Cincinnati (from Bryan Holdcroft and William Moore, respectively). ”¦ New field design for Wisconsin Lutheran College (from Peter Iles). ”¦ Here are a bunch of SEC teams rendered in their rivals’ team colors (blame Phil). ”¦ New helmet for Virginia State (from Michael Girdner).
Hockey News: The Red Wings will consider retiring Sergei Federov’s No. 91. ”¦ Mike Engle notes that the Canadiens’ roster reflects some uni number changes: “Christian Thomas goes from 60 down to 20, and Greg Pateryn goes from 64 to 6. These two have always been farmhands, so the lower numbers are signs of respect. Also, Zack Kassian gets 8 — the closest thing to his normal 9, which is forever Rocket’s number.” ”¦ “The Pens posted a video of Phil Kessel jerseys to pump everyone up about the trade,” says Evan Miller. “At first all they show is the black throwback that debuted last year, but then they showed this. That jersey has a gold body and black numbers, something we haven’t seen from the Pens in about 25 years. Yes, they do sell CCM Lemieux jerseys of this style, but never any with a current player. Anyways, I hope there is some meat on this bone!”
NBA News: Here’s how the Clippers’ new uniform looks in a video game (from Andrew Cosentino). ”¦ Whoa, check out this old shot of Larry Bird in a Hancock Construction Company basketball uniform (nice one from Phil Lawson).
Soccer News: New uniforms for Sporting Clube de Portugal (from Joey Bertao). ”¦ Not uni-related, but good story about how soccer is thriving in the harsh Canadian Arctic. ”¦ The U.S. Soccer Store is selling a stars/stripes jersey for Independence Day. I guess they didn’t get the word that America’s national colors are actually black, white, and neon. ”¦ Fun article about proposed MLS team names that didn’t make the cut (from AW Rader).
Grab Bag: NASCAR is now officially asking its fans to stop flying the Confederate battle flag at races. ”¦ In a related item, nice move by golfer Bubba Watson, who owns the “General Lee” car from The Dukes of Hazard and has decided to paint over the Confederate flag on the roof (thanks, Phil). ”¦ Nice piece on U.S. military uniform history. ”¦ Apple wants the logo on its devices to be more functional. ”¦ Students from the U. of Minnesota helped develop new modesty-centric sports uniforms for local Muslim girls. Further info here (from Braden Claassen). ”¦ In a related item, Uniqlo has a new fashion line from a Muslim blogger that shows how modesty can be stylish (thanks, Brinke)”¦. New camouflage pattern for the U.S. Army (from Mike Cooperman). ”¦ Aussie rules football news from Leo Strawn Jr., who writes: “The Adelaide Crows’ match against the Geelong Cats this weekend has been cancelled because of the tragic murder of Crows senior coach Phil Walsh, allegedly stabbed repeatedly by his own son. Collingwood Magpies vs. Hawthorn Hawks match was the only scheduled Friday game and players on both clubs wore black armbands in memory of the fallen coach.” … New basketball court for Western Michigan (from Toby Moleski).
What Paul did last night yesterday: Yesterday afternoon two of my Very Favorite People in the entire world got married, and I was privileged to be there for it. The ceremony was great, the post-ceremony champagne toast was great, the dinner afterward was great, and all the other attendees were great. It was one of those days that make you feel so lucky to have such amazing people in your life.
Here’s to you, Matt and Rebecca — you’re the best!
Holiday schedule: Phil is taking a well-earned break this weekend, but Uni Watch will be open for business tomorrow and Sunday, although content will likely be light. See you then.
Is there a pic that shows all the uni watch t-shirt designs together? (Or can someone just list them?). Just curious to see the progression from month to month.
Bottom of this page:
link
Surprised that Darrell Porter was not included as part of best bespectacled ball players from 1985.
I think the black numbers on yellow background in the Kessel video are from the sleeves of their current throwback alternate. I’d love to see them breakout the yellow retro sweaters at some point though.
Those are absolutely sleeve numbers. The 8 is far too wide.
Concurring.
I have too many hockey jerseys (many of which are Reebok replicas from the “EDGE era” from 2007 to the present), and the sleeve fabric is markedly different from the front and back fabric. That texture, plus the fact that the Penguins’ throwback alts have a gold spot where black on white numbers lie on the sleeves, means that you’re almost definitely looking at nothing new.
Sorry if you got your hopes up, buddy.
“… The U.S. Soccer Store is selling a stars/stripes jersey for Independence Day…”
And only $125.
Really dig Matt’s two-tone wedding shoes.
I always thought that, by the very definition of whom and what it represents and the visual identifiers available to it, a United States national soccer team jersey could never have a design that might be considered pandering. The new “stars and stripes” numbers being applied to an existing jersey design – one that already comes in national colors – strictly for retail sales, mashes me realize how wrong I was in that assumption.
*makes me realize
Stupid autocorrect on my tablet! True fact: it just tried to change my latest attempt to type “makes” into both “mashes” (again) and “Martha.” And it just now thought “mashes” should be “mages.”
*makes me realize
Note that the colors of the flag in the numbers clash badly with the various blue hues of the jersey. On a national-team uniform, this should not be possible. At least not for USA, since our sporting colors are supposed to be the same as our flag colors.
I’m still a little weirded out about Tuesday night: USA played Germany, and the team in white and black beat the team in red, and somehow that meant USA won the game. Cats and dogs living together, man.
In a related item, nice move by golfer Bubba Watson, who owns the “General Lee” car from The Dukes of Hazard and has decided to paint over the Confederate flag on the roof
…thus making the car significantly less valuable. Good for him, I guess.
Bubba Watson is amusing, painting over the General Lee while still playing at insanely racist country clubs.
Which clubs would those be?
Shoal Creek
Phil’s response below to your comment about Augusta applies just as well to Shoal Creek, which has also admitted minorities since coming under scrutiny in the early ’90s. I have no interest in defending Shoal Creek or the pace at which it has desegregted itself. But that’s really beside the point.
Your original commment about Bubba Watson comes across as nothing more than a smug “gotcha.” The two issues don’t go hand in hand, and the comparison fails when one considers the minorities who do have memerships to these clubs or who have played professional tournaments there over the last 25 years. But there’s no reason you should let those facts get in the way of calling Bubba Watson a hypocrite, right?
I am comfortable with my comment.
Yes Kyle. Please enlighten us. Also would you please break down for us those clubs that “insanely racist” as opposed to those that are just plain racist?
Augusta National
“Augusta National”
~~~
It’s true that change does come at glacial pace to the club that hosts The Masters, but they admitted their first black member in (I believe) 1990 and also just admitted their first female member (Condi Rice is one) a few years back.
I’m not defending the Masters/Augusta by any means, and I’m sure there’s plenty of latent sexism/racism still afoot there, but to call the place “racist” or “insanely racist” is no longer correct.
I don’t know crap about country clubs, so I’m not going to get into the that mess… but the General Lee was a piece of cinematic history. It should probably have been in a museum. To actually own The General Lee is like owning KITT or the Batmobile, only a little less cool, because reasons. For someone to paint over it is just… why would you do that? I don’t care what you think the confederate flag *really* means, you don’t destroy something like that, especially after spending as much money as he did to buy it in the first place.
“…the General Lee was a piece of cinematic history.”
~~~
Pretty sure there were like 67 or so of those cars made and used in various capacities on the show. Bubba most certainly did not own the only one.
The real tragedy is how many ’69 Chargers were destroyed over the course of filming that series.
But it left us all those real-world brick and mortar stunts. Part of me misses that in a world overstuffed with green-screen and CGI wizardry.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna cue up some Harold Lloyd. I hope he hangs on to that clock!
For someone to paint over it is just… why would you do that?
Because it’s his property and he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it.
Your previous comment, about how painting it would make it less valuable, is a depressing example of the increasing cultural tendency to assess actions solely on their economic rationale. If someone donates to charity, they lower their net worth — why would they do that?
Maybe because it felt like the right thing to do.
For someone to donate to charity is just… why would you do that?
Couldn’t that kessel pic in the ticker of the yellow body and black 81 be a close up of the number on the sleeve of the current 3rd jersey?
Who gets married on a Thursday?
What kind of idiot questions when people choose to get married?
Possibly the kind of idiot that works a standard soul-crushing Monday-Friday job that wouldn’t be able to attend a Thursday wedding?
It was a Thursday evening wedding, on the day before a Federally declared ‘holiday’ (granted, I/D isn’t till tomorrow, but most of us who work at stardard soul-crushing Monday-Friday jobs could easily have made it).
BTW, THE, I got married on a Friday morning. It was also black Friday. Two of my groomsmen worked retail, and they weren’t happy. But then, I wasn’t paying for it, so it wasn’t my call (my ex-wife and I actually had wanted to get married on New Year’s Eve — in retrospect, that would have been a stupid decision, as it would have fucked up countless peoples’ plans for NYE).
I think a Thursday evening wedding on the day before a three day weekend is kinda awesome.
Possibly the kind of idiot that works a standard soul-crushing Monday-Friday job that wouldn’t be able to attend a Thursday wedding?
Maybe — just maybe — the people who chose to get married on Thursday afternoon knew who they’d be inviting to attend the ceremony. And maybe — just maybe — they knew whether that time slot would impose a burden on those guests. So maybe — just maybe — they’re a better judge than you (or anyone else) as to whether their chosen day/time was problematic.
Just maybe.
Matt and Rebecca
non-traditional weddings (whatever that means) are sometimes a second wedding or something. But as time goes by I’ve noticed more ‘non-traditional’ weddings. Just going straight to the courthouse, no party, no nothin’. Or what’s popular among my circle of friends is having a friend marry them. You can become an officiant by taking an online course. Is it because religious values aren’t that important anymore? I don’t know.
what’s popular among my circle of friends is having a friend marry them. You can become an officiant by taking an online course. Is it because religious values aren’t that important anymore? I don’t know.
Marriage is not a religious act; it is a civic act. That’s why you need a government-issued license to get married (or to be an officiant, for that matter). Long before friends could get ordained in mail-order ministries, there have always been non-religious people who could officiate at a wedding: judges, mayors, ship captains, etc.
Beg to respectfully disagree. Marriage is certainly a civic act for everyone in the U.S., and it also a religious act for many of those people. It is likely that for a growing number of people it is solely a civic act, but that does not mean that it is also a religious act for the remainder.
It is a civic act first and foremost, which is why, as already stated, you need a government-issued license to engage in it.
The religious component is an add-on for those who choose to add it on, but it is secondary, at least as a matter of public policy.
Related to the above: Marriage is not a private act — it is a public act. That’s why you need a witness, and why your marriage license is a public record that anyone can look up and access. All of this speaks to marriage being a civic act in our culture. The religious component, for those who choose it, is an add-on.
“Marriage is not a religious act; it is a civic act.”
In a general sense, you’re not wrong. But occasionally, we have seen unions that were blessed by a religious organization without being acknowledged by any civic authority.
There are “Mormon fundamentalist” sects where a man may have several wives in the eyes of his church, but only one of them is recognized by state or federal law.
Also, it was common for many years in some religious denominations to conduct same-sex weddings of a spiritual and social nature in states that did not actually permit such marriages in civil law.
(Note that I am not attempting to draw an equivalence between these two situations.)
You don’t actually need a civic license to engage in marriage. You need a civic license to obtain the legal benefits of civic marriage. Two different things. Whether marriage is “first and foremost” a civic or a religious act is not an objectively answerable question; if one is a committed Christian, or certain flavor of Jew, or for all I know a devout Muslim, it is a religious act first and foremost and is so without regard to the civic aspect of the thing. If one is not, then not. To declare that it is primarily a civic act is to declare the falsehood of nearly all Western religious belief.
You don’t actually need a civic license to engage in marriage.
Point taken. But something like 99.999% of marriages in our culture do in fact entail the use of a civic license. That license (which, as noted upthread, is a public record, available to anyone who cares to search for it) is the common thread throughout marriages in our culture, whether the ceremony is sectarian or secular. It defines marriage as a civic act.
The right to engage in that civic act is what a certain class of our fellow citizens just won via last week’s Supreme Court decision. That really underscores marriage’s civic nature in our culture.
When I went with my then-fiancee to get our marriage license from the Town Clerk (a couple days before the wedding), as soon as we’d filled it out (I knew him personally), he took me aside, and said, “Technically, you guys know you’re officially married now, right?”
I hadn’t given the civil part of it much thought, but that always stuck with me.
Yeah, you could say we got married in the church, but in the eyes of the law (which is all that matters, legally), we had tied the knot once we filled out the marriage license. The rest was just for show.
Government shouldn’t be in the wedding business.
Marriage is not a religious act; it is a civic act.
Agreed. Rebecca looked radiant and Matt hit it out of the park with those smashing shoes.
Something for the ticker, perhaps: New home kit for Manchester City: link
I like them! What’s come over Nike with their new-found restraint in uniform design?!
I think the difference between Confederate flag defenders, and people in favor of the Redskins name is the pronouns.
Redskins fan: “It honors their heritage.”
Confederate flag fan: “It honors our heritage.”
People who defend the Confederate flag for the most part are Southerners, who feel a personal connection to their own history. People who want to keep the Redskins name feel they are honoring a different groups history, whether that group likes it or not.
“People who want to keep the Redskins name feel they are honoring a different groups history, whether that group likes it or not.”
Or, perhaps more accurately, they use the “honoring” line as a convenient trope whenever someone questions the propriety of the team name.
I thought painting over the flag on the General Lee is taking things a bit too far and is off the mark in my opinion.
The way I feel about the flag is that there’s two sides to it. The first is the racist connotation, slavery, the side that lost the war, which I get. Sure, take THAT flag down.
The other thing I think is stands for is southern pride (I know, cliche or whatever). To me THAT flag has got nothing to do with racism or slavery or losing a war, it’s about good ol boys going muddin, hunting, fishing, skin color doesn’t matter, it’s a symbol of the south, nothing more. To me that is the flag thats on the General Lee and why it shouldn’t be painted over.
I understand the psychological basis for your distinction, but the problem here is that the first clearly pre-dated the second.
It might be easier, in some ways, to redeem the swastika, since it was in use for millennia prior to being appropriated by the Nazis.
In any case, that car should probably have been left alone. Granted, I haven’t seen a great many episodes of the show, but it does mostly seem like just a bunch of country folks doing country things. The very idea that a television series set in the American South, not too long after the Civil Rights Era, and featuring a car that looks like *that*, can manage to somehow *not* feel racist is pretty amazing.
Now, whether that’s good or bad is difficult to say.
The problem is, the two flags you describe look exaclty the same. There’s no way to distinguish which is which, especially to the outside observer who could be potentially threatened or marginalized by the first definition.
*exactly
(Of course my autocorrect didn’t catch that typo…)
I thought painting over the flag on the General Lee is taking things a bit too far and is off the mark in my opinion.
So you think a person doing whatever the fuck he wants with his own fucking property, in a way that doesn’t hurt or threaten anyone (i.e., he’s not setting his house on fire or mixing up explosive chemicals in the garage), is “taking things too far”?
Please explain.
(Not speaking for Tom V, here, but here’s my guess:)
I think folks view the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag as something he (or anyone) might not have done of his own volition; that is, it was viewed as a “reaction to the PC Police.”
Like,
I’d have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids. I’m almost thinking some people feel Bubba was “forced” to remove the flag by “outsiders” who “shouldn’t be meddlin’ in others’ affairs.”Nevermind that (like you pointed out) it’s his car and he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it, and two, he himself acknowledged it was the right thing to do. Bubba doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of history, and he should be commended for that.
I can’t speak for Tom V., either, but my own take on this situation is that it might be considered a bit odd to make significant alterations to items of collectible value.
Imagine buying the ruby slippers used in the 1939 *Wizard of Oz* movie…and then painting them yellow. You’d be perfectly within your rights to do so, but a lot of fans would likely view that as going “too far.”
Oh, please. It’s not a public trust — it’s a piece of private property, and he can do what he wants with it.
The fact that he happens to have done something very commendable is nice. But if he had painted over the flag with a swastika, the bottom line would still be the same: His car, his choice.
“…it’s a piece of private property, and he can do what he wants with it.”
I agree.
If you want to shell out for a Rembrandt painting, and then make some of your own “adjustments” to it…that’s your business.
But you may have to be prepared for a little criticism over it, too.
But you may have to be prepared for a little criticism over it, too.
I agree that his actions are certainly open to critique, but it’s fair to ask that those critiques be logical, reasonable, defensible, etc. The critique currently under discussion is that he is “taking things too far,” and I have yet to hear a good defense or explanation of that critique.
“Imagine buying the ruby slippers used in the 1939 *Wizard of Oz* movie…and then painting them yellow.”
~~~
I’m not sure this is a valid comparison. Those slippers were truly one-of-a-kind. The General Lee that Bubba owns is one of many (and I’m sure there are just as many ‘copy-cats’ that were made by private owners, probably to the exact specs, as the General Lee’s seen in DoH).
Same thing with a Picasso or Rembrandt. Those are basically one-of-a-kinds too.
If we are talking about the Spirit of St. Louis or the Wright Bros.’ first plane or something, then yeah. But that’s not the case here.
Plus Bubba owns a freaking golf-cart hovercraft, which is awesome, so he’s got my blessing to do anything he wants with his own car.
In addition to Phil’s points (all of which are right on the money), there’s this: There’s nothing divisive or controversial about the ruby red slippers or a Rembrandt. The same can’t be said of the General Lee. We shouldn’t be surprised when controversial and divisive items are modified or discarded, or when the people who own them decide that they no longer want to be connected to that controversy.
The underlying point that some of you seem to be making is that owning this car is a public trust, and that it comes with some higher level of responsibility for its stewardship. I strongly disagree, for many reasons (not the least of which is that, as Phil has pointed out, it’s one of many, not one of a kind).
“I’m not sure this is a valid comparison.”
Nah, it’s not a perfect analogy. To be fair, Bubba’s General Lee is of particular significance because it’s purported to be the very first of its kind used on the show.
link
But the car has also been extensively restored, and one could presume that this involved re-creating the original paint job, anyway. So I guess that a future owner could simply re-paint the roof once again.
So it isn’t quite the same as an irreplaceable, one-of-a-kind treasure that, if altered in any way, is essentially lost forever. I’m a preservationist at heart, though, and I like the idea that items of cultural value should be purchased and owned by those who appreciate them as they were meant to be.
And I find it somewhat curious that Bubba Watson would have bought such a car in the first place, if he didn’t care for the look.
Then again, maybe he simply changed his mind.
OK. So it was the first car built for the show. But not the ONLY car built for the show. And, as that Fox News article points out, “The busted up car was discovered over a decade ago in the junkyard it had been abandoned in…”
So, it’s not like the car hasn’t already been altered substantially.
Still not a one-of-a-kind like a Rembrandt or ruby red slippers.
[from Paul’s response]
“The underlying point that some of you seem to be making is that owning this car is a public trust, and that it comes with some higher level of responsibility for its stewardship.”
I don’t want to go nearly that far on this automobile, of course, but the discussion has, I must admit, made me wonder where we draw such lines about “stewardship.” It’s something that I may likely be pondering in the days to come.
“There’s nothing divisive or controversial about the ruby red slippers or a Rembrandt. The same can’t be said of the General Lee. We shouldn’t be surprised when controversial and divisive items are modified or discarded, or when the people who own them decide that they no longer want to be connected to that controversy.”
I hate to go straight to Godwinism on this, but…
Hitler paintings.
Some would prefer that they be destroyed or defaced merely on their association alone. I’m not so sure.
I can’t really comment in any sophisticated fashion on their artistic merits, but they definitely have some historical significance, and I’m inclined to recommend that they be preserved, despite sentiment to the contrary…
link
link
[from Phil’s response]
“So, it’s not like the car hasn’t already been altered substantially.”
Perhaps my comments are a bit long and boring at times. My apologies.
Yes, his property and can do what he wants with it, etc etc etc.
But in my opinion this is taking it overboard, and I already explained why, and that’s reason I don’t find it commendable.
Again, there’s two ends to the Confederate Battle Flag spectrum. (Or the Northern Virginia Battle Flag or whatever we call it by.)
One is the symbol of racism. Take it down. I can see good reasoning for it not to fly over a state capital when it’s not the state flag or national flag. I don’t agree with the manner in which one person chose to remove it as there are more effective, mature ways to deal with the situation.
But the second is the symbol of “southern pride” where racism isn’t a part of the equation. Yes, same flag BvK, but it’s just the same as a word with two meanings, like lead and lead. Racism is one end of the spectrum, southern pride at the other. Like Unitroll said, country people doing country things is what the flag stands for in The Dukes world.
Paul I realize you strongly agree with what he did, but it’s almost like I’m not sure you understand the argument.
Here’s a poll I found that seems to agree with my argument. It’s the first poll in my search results so why continue looking?
link
And one last thing, the state flags of Florida and Alabama strongly resemble the flag in question, how long before we find those offensive because they remind us of the Confederate flag?
But yeah, his property, can do with it what he wants. Not as strong as an argument as I would have expected Paul, but you commend him on it so I know where you’re coming from.
But in my opinion this is taking it overboard, and I already explained why…
Actually, you have NOT explained why. You’ve explained why you think there are two sides to the flag argument, but you have not explained why a citizen doing what he likes with his private property is “taking things overboard.”
He obviously feels a certain way about the flag, and he acted upon that feeling. Maybe you feel differently and would have acted differently — but he has the car, not you. I fail to see how that is “taking things overboard,” and I continue to await a good explanation of how it qualifies as such.
If I bought a house that happened to have a Confederate flag painted onto one side of it, I would certainly paint over it, because I don’t want that on my house. Would that be “taking things overboard”? If so, please explain why; if not, please explain how that’s any different from what Watson did with the car.
We recently saw the case of the guy who was selling the old Mets bullpen buggy. If he had repainted it to become a Yankees buggy (or Phillies, or whatever), would that have been “taking things overboard”? If so, please explain why; if not, please explain how that’s any different from what Watson did with the car.
And so on.
Paul, in your examples of the house and buggy, the difference is you bought a house and a buggy because you wanted a house and buggy.
I could be wrong, but I doubt Bubba purchased the car because he wanted a Dodge Charger. Instead he probably purchased the car because he wanted the car from that TV show. To paint over a key element of the car is strange to me. He’s basically pretending the flag was never there. In my opinion, if he’s bothered by the flag, then (a) keep the car in the garage as a collectors item or (b) get rid of the car.
(Note, I agree he can do whatever he wants with his property. I just find it strange in this case.)
In my opinion, if he’s bothered by the flag, then (a) keep the car in the garage as a collectors item or (b) get rid of the car.
I agree that those are two valid options. But I don’t see why he can’t also (c) paint over the flag. Seems like just as valid an option as the other two.
Your first two options assume a sort of passive approach on his part. But maybe he wanted to take a more active approach — i.e., maybe he wanted to make a statement. Nothing wrong with that, no matter whether one agrees or disagrees with the statement.
The “two ends of the Confederate Battle Flag
Spectrum” are this. On the one hand, there’s the racism. On the other, it’s a symbol of treason and failed rebellion.
There are many worthy symbols of justified Southern pride: music, art, literature. That flag is not one of them.
Yes Paul, (c) is certainly an option and that’s his choice. Like I said, I just personally find it strange. Especially considering he’s painting over it with the American flag. So now he’ll have a car named the General Lee with an American flag on it. Surreal and strange. Seems “1984”-ish to me.
So now he’ll have a car named the General Lee with an American flag on it.
Actually, now he’ll have a car that he can call whatever he likes. There’s nothing that says he has to keep calling it the General Lee.
Should be Justin Bour, not Bohr
What’s the story behind people, places or things being designated as “very favorite”?
Is this a reference to something that I just don’t recognize?
There’s a type-o in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the lede:
“Only two MLB teams don’t to have…”
I was surprised there are only 5 MLBers with the surname Johnson, especially since there are 3 on the Braves alone!
Good topic:
It interests me when a player gets traded just to see his new number and name on a different jersey, especially seeing the difference in the letter Q or q -> A fancy letter, one with which can not be f’d with.
You F the “Q” or “q” up, you’re f’d. Get it?
The Red Sox called up Noe Ramirez today, so Ramirez will move into a tie for first, assuming he’s still with the team by the Red Sox next road trip. (Rookie relief pitcher isn’t a terribly stable gig.)
Nothing to do with the armbands, bit that is a great “speccie” by the Collingwood player.
The Tigers have two Wilsons (Alex and Josh) and zero Perezes (Hernan was released and picked up by the Brewers).