|
Sash! posted:If rage at "Thing X did Thing Y, you'll NEVER guess what happened next" makes me a grandpa, then give me a recliner and a bowl full of ribbon candy. I feel like you standing up for him further validates my opinion.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
T.J. Simers was won 7.1 million dollars in an age and disability discrimination suit against the Los Angeles Times. His argument: they made his work situation untenable after he suffered a stroke in early 2013, meting out extra editorial scrutiny over his writing and dropping him from three columns a week to two without explanation. Their argument: he inserted his daughter as one of the subjects of a column, and that he didn't disclose that he was in a business relationship with the producer of a video he used for a column. The incredible thing: The L.A. Times was paying T.J. Simers $234,000 A YEAR when he left. Crazy Ted fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
MourningView posted:? That seems like a normal little kid thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:I was more horrified by the idea of the First Church of Adam Sandler. He was making a joke about his kids liking him a lot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:The incredible thing: The L.A. Times was paying T.J. Simers $234,000 A YEAR when he left. Well, I'm certainly working for the wrong paper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
ARod's interview with Katie Nolan was amazing. For me, it did more to fix his image than any amount of bull poo poo press conferences or posturing could have done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
He's been amazing on the Fox baseball panel too as an analyst. Was expecting him to be an awkward mess and he's actually a natural at it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
If anyone wants to hear more about Grantland, I recommend Simmons podcast with Malcolm Gladwell. Basically the first 20 minutes Gladwell shits on ESPN.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:If anyone wants to hear more about Grantland, I recommend Simmons podcast with Malcolm Gladwell. Basically the first 20 minutes Gladwell shits on ESPN. I haven't listened to the whole thing, but good lord Gladwell sounds willfully naive with his calls for sports commissioners to ban teams from using public funds to build stadiums.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:I haven't listened to the whole thing, but good lord Gladwell sounds willfully naive with his calls for sports commissioners to ban teams from using public funds to build stadiums. While his idea of sports commissioners making a stand against stadium fuckery makes absolutely no sense (they are the ones who benefit), living in St. Louis it feels like the never ending stadium situation going on with the Rams is pulled straight out of a Simpsons episode or something. I think (hope?) that eventually the whole "public money for rich sports owners" is going to be looked back on like when women used arsenic in makeup or the widespread use of lead in paint. It's so odd to me that in 2015 people get offended at almost any possible thing and yet somehow sports owners can do this robber baron poo poo in plain daylight and its just seen as business as usual.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Vice sucks agreed, but viceland looks like it'll feature adrianne jeffries, molly crabapple and eddie huang pretty prominently. all three of them are really great
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Simmons is doing documentaries for HBO and has announced his first will be about Andre the Giant. gently caress yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
joshtothemaxx posted:Simmons is doing documentaries for HBO and has announced his first will be about Andre the Giant. gently caress yeah. That is great. I've long heard him talk about thats the one project he could never do before. I wonder if WWE is going to play ball then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
There was a decent article about Andre the Giant recently on Grantland, just in case you missed it. I'd still take a documentary though obviously. http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/the-biggest-man-understanding-andre-the-giant-wrestlings-massive-indefinable-contradiction/
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Ty1990 posted:Sooooooooo seriously what other sites are out there for good sports writing? I'm legitimately lose without Grantland. Longform.com and Longreads.com both have sports sections if you like some of the really wordy, in depth pieces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
ColonelJohnMatrix posted:While his idea of sports commissioners making a stand against stadium fuckery makes absolutely no sense (they are the ones who benefit), living in St. Louis it feels like the never ending stadium situation going on with the Rams is pulled straight out of a Simpsons episode or something. I think (hope?) that eventually the whole "public money for rich sports owners" is going to be looked back on like when women used arsenic in makeup or the widespread use of lead in paint. It's so odd to me that in 2015 people get offended at almost any possible thing and yet somehow sports owners can do this robber baron poo poo in plain daylight and its just seen as business as usual.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:I haven't listened to the whole thing, but good lord Gladwell sounds willfully naive with his calls for sports commissioners to ban teams from using public funds to build stadiums. One of the Deadspin writers (Petchesky, I think) has been getting self-righteously indignant about publicly funded stadiums for like a year, so Gladwell isn't alone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Being anti-stadium building funded by municipalities is a thing people have been for much more than a year, Neil De Mause's book came out in 1998.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Jim Brady is ESPN's new Ombudsman/public editor
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:I think Bill Simmons has finally gone off the deep end: My 11 year old daughter would not shut up about wanting to see that movie endlessly every time she saw a trailer for it. You really underestimate the target audience for movies like Pixels. Some parents will take a stand and refuse out of principle (or thank god their kids forgot about it after a while) but most of them will just give up and drudge through it while replacing their 64 oz coke with whiskey. So there really is no good alternative to Grantland? gently caress. I've gone there twice this morning already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Deadspin's Diana Moskovitz has a very deep breakdown on what happened the night Greg Hardy beat the poo poo out of his ex. Fair warning, there are some pretty brutal pictures in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Edit: Beaten. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Deadspin's Diana Moskovitz has a very deep breakdown on what happened the night Greg Hardy beat the poo poo out of his ex. You mean a very deep breakdown on what happened the night PRO BOWL ATHLETE Greg Hardy beat the poo poo out of his ex. Seriously, this is a miserably sad read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
hcreight posted:Edit: Beaten. Well, that's a little on the nose, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Didn't even mean to do that!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
hcreight posted:Edit: Beaten. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think public sentiment turned against owners a few years ago. There have been some very shady deals done that always screw over taxpayers which have received more media attention in the last few years. Public money for stadiums is gross, but as long as another city will provide it, there is no solution. It is the same thing as states that give like 100 million to get a company to open a factory up to supply like 2,000 jobs. It is stupid, but Metlife or BMW or whoever can get it somewhere else, so Raleigh or Spartenburg open the check book immediately. It is bad business to not take the money. Ribsauce fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Ribsauce posted:The main problem is no city wants to be the ones to take a stand because if you lose the team, you aren't getting another one (most likely). A sports team, especially an NFL one, is the least replaceable resource there is. It sounds stupid when Simmons says something like "Sacramento, if they lose the Kings, what are they, the place the Governor lives." It sounds dumb, but for a city like that it is true. When was the last time Sacramento was talked about for anything? Why is "being talked about" enough reason for that? Economic research has consistently shown that spending on professional sports brings no economic benefits to cities. People don't suddenly spend more on entertainment because there is a sports franchise. It is very different from attracting a new factory (which has its own problems, but is not the same issue). The reason cities spend on public stadiums is because billionaires lobby for that. This isn't a problem of a race to the bottom where cities and states have to keep providing incentives to keep their business or lose jobs. Sports franchises just shift income from one part of the city to the other, and bring no tangible economic benefits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
It make sense to spend money on a sports team for the same reason it makes sense to spend money on public parks, pools, etc. It is a quality of life thing, even if it costs a large amount of money to keep one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Why is "being talked about" enough reason for that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Research has been pretty consistent that professional sports teams do not attract enough outside interests to warrant that. Likewise, in terms of people served or willingness for people to pay for it, it is just about the worst quality of life investment. The real reason cities spend money on it has nothing to do with being talked about or improving quality of life. It is basic "interest group" political science explanations. Atlantans may have opposed a new Falcons stadium 3 to 1, but that opposition isn't enough to make up for the money Arthur Blank pours not only on political campaigns, but on the local charities of choice of key political figures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Research has been pretty consistent that professional sports teams do not attract enough outside interests to warrant that. Likewise, in terms of people served or willingness for people to pay for it, it is just about the worst quality of life investment. The real reason cities spend money on it has nothing to do with being talked about or improving quality of life. It is basic "interest group" political science explanations. Atlantans may have opposed a new Falcons stadium 3 to 1, but that opposition isn't enough to make up for the money Arthur Blank pours not only on political campaigns, but on the local charities of choice of key political figures. I'm going to have to ask for a citation on research that shows pro teams are bad exposure tools, because I am pretty sure that's not right. There is research on the Economic impact, but Ribsauce is talking about non-economic benefit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
You shouldn't give truckloads of money to billionaires in exchange for "non-economic benefit"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
I'm not sure if you guys think I am in any way suggesting giving money to the stadiums is a good thing but I am not. I am just saying what the cities think. You don't have to tell me they don't actually create millions of dollars of impact and thousands of jobs. I know. People on these commissions and boards live in an alternative reality where spending all types of money for "name recognition" is a perfectly reasonable thing, even though there is no tangible benefit. The best thing this North Carolina's General Assembly did the last session* was tell the Panthers to go gently caress themselves when they tried to export us taxpayers out of 90 million. Of course Charlotte immediately paniced and gave them city money, but at least the state hit them with a middle finger. *note: There wasn't a lot of competition in the "good things NC's government did recently" contest
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:You shouldn't give truckloads of money to billionaires in exchange for "non-economic benefit" How about happiness? Seeing Giannis on the Seattle Bucks...no. Edit: Speaking of sadness, taking away Grantland at the start of the NBA season and depriving us of Lowe was just cruel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Lockback posted:I'm going to have to ask for a citation on research that shows pro teams are bad exposure tools, because I am pretty sure that's not right. There is research on the Economic impact, but Ribsauce is talking about non-economic benefit. Zimmerman, Dennis. "Subsidizing stadiums: Who benefits, who pays." Sports, jobs, and taxes: The impact of sports teams and stadiums (1997): 119-145. Professional football stadiums have no measurable impact on attracting outside tourists. Johnson, Bruce K., Peter A. Groothuis, and John C. Whitehead. "The Value of Public Goods Generated by a Major League Sports Team The CVM Approach." Journal of Sports Economics 2.1 (2001): 6-21. Johnson, Bruce K., and John C. Whitehead. "Value of public goods from sports stadiums: The CVM approach." Contemporary Economic Policy 18.1 (2000): 48-58. Swindell, David, and Mark S. Rosentraub. "Who benefits from the presence of professional sports teams? The implications for public funding of stadiums and arenas." Public Administration Review (1998): 11-20. Public stadiums are just about the most inefficient ways of generating non-economic benefits, such as civic pride. If stadiums do not have a significant impact on tourism and are inefficient ways of creating civic pride, I'd say they are "bad exposure tools." Ribsauce posted:I'm not sure if you guys think I am in any way suggesting giving money to the stadiums is a good thing but I am not. I am just saying what the cities think. You don't have to tell me they don't actually create millions of dollars of impact and thousands of jobs. I know. People on these commissions and boards live in an alternative reality where spending all types of money for "name recognition" is a perfectly reasonable thing, even though there is no tangible benefit. The idea that public subsidies for stadiums are well intentioned but poorly informed actions by local politicians makes no sense given the efforts in Atlanta and other places to avoid public hearings, public votes, etc on the issue. Simpler explanations are better, and in this case special interest politics not only match what we witness better, but also with a simpler explanation. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:How about happiness? Seeing Giannis on the Seattle Sonics I just got a huge  right now don't tease me like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:How about happiness? Seeing Giannis on the Seattle Bucks...no. I don't feel like driving down to Tukwila and walking past rows of video poker machines and hearing planes land overhead, honestly. Because an in-city arena is never going to happen, you see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:How about happiness? Seeing Giannis on the Seattle Bucks...no. He has to resurface sometime soon, hopefully not behind a lovely ESPN paywall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:I just got a huge Sorry dude Wisconsin is paying 250 million to keep him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 23:37
|
|