CADad,
Don't give government credit for threatening to invalidate the reserve clause and prompting baseball to make progress. They didn't solve the problem. They enabled the reserve clause by distorting the market through anti-trust legislation and the associated exemption for baseball. Government created the indentured status that kept players from being paid what they were worth until an arbitrator (not the government) declared the first two free agents.
People seem to resist change, even if it's for their own good. Sure, my son faces more danger, statistically, on the highway than he does on the ball field. To be honest, I'm not prepared to see him seriously injured in either endeavor.
In fact, I'm ok with the fact that we have legislated seat belt usage, speed limits, air bags, and require structural safety measures in the design of today's automobiles AND that we have finally cracked down on drinking and driving in this country! It doesn't preclude his possible fatality but certainly he has a much better chance of surviving a car crash than I did at his age.
Likewise in Sports, safety equipment has been introduced and accepted into usage that has made many safer today competing than in the past.
I'm sure that's not all good though. I'm going to ponder the down side, ..... while I sigh a relief when my son bats wearing his helmet AND continue to be silently thankful he doesn't get on the "bump."
In fact, I'm ok with the fact that we have legislated seat belt usage, speed limits, air bags, and require structural safety measures in the design of today's automobiles AND that we have finally cracked down on drinking and driving in this country! It doesn't preclude his possible fatality but certainly he has a much better chance of surviving a car crash than I did at his age.
Likewise in Sports, safety equipment has been introduced and accepted into usage that has made many safer today competing than in the past.
I'm sure that's not all good though. I'm going to ponder the down side, ..... while I sigh a relief when my son bats wearing his helmet AND continue to be silently thankful he doesn't get on the "bump."
Prime9,
Well stated and a much better job than I did. Of course it doesn't stand up to the time honored argument...Uhhh, because.
Well stated and a much better job than I did. Of course it doesn't stand up to the time honored argument...Uhhh, because.
quote:Originally posted by Prime9:
... I'm ok with the fact that we have legislated seat belt usage...
I would check yourself with that one. Seat belt laws have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with generating revenue and giving police more opportunity for probable cause to pull someone over.
Be very wary of the legislator who wants to write laws to protect you from you. If saving the public money by creating a safer environment becomes the threshold for legislation, we are on a slippery slope that takes us towards hundreds of laws under the guise of, "for the greater good". It's really not a good idea to let others tell individuals what choices he/she should make for their own good, when the consequence of their choice has no effect on society beyond his life or immediate family. It's called oppression and it flies in the face of true freedom.
AMEN CPLZ!!!
quote:Seat belt laws have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with generating revenue and giving police more opportunity for probable cause to pull someone over.
Nothing to do with public safety, absolutely nothing???
Everything, absolutely everything, to do with generating revenue and giving police more intrusive enforcement powers?
Please provide the reliable sources for this. What would be useful would be reliable sources for each fact presented.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
What would be useful would be reliable sources for each fact presented.
If I told you that the tooth fairy wasn't real, but couldn't produce a "reliable" source to uphold my point, would that make the tooth fairy real?
Here in Illinois, the new fad in public safety is red light cameras. Get caught by the camera going through a red light, you get a $100 ticket in the mail. 90% of all red light tickets are for not coming to a full stop before making a right turn on red. They are putting up these cameras in intersections that have never had a traffic fatality or a life threatening collision. Revenue generation is sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per month per traffic light.
I don't have a "reliable" source that can tell me that these were erected with the sole purpose of revenue generation. However, I don't believe for one second that they are in the interest of public safety, just under the guise of public safety.
Millions are generated by seat belt violations here in Illinois. The state offers grants to towns that will put up random roadblocks as "seat belt enforcement zones (SBEZ)". The grant states that personnel may not be taken from regular duties to manage the SBEZ, so the municipalities use officers on overtime to man the SBEZ. The state has produced studies, that show how many tickets need to be written per hour at various levels of fines to make seat belt enforcement zones profitable based on the costs involved in manpower and equipment. Police officers are not shy about talking about how the SBEZ's give them the ability to collect overtime in a period where fiscal restraints wouldn't normally have accounted for it in the budget. I have police officer friends who tell me how much easier their job is to make a traffic stop and check for other violations because of the seat belt laws. Police departments routinely come out in favor of red light cameras, when in actuality, the number of accidents at intersections with red light cameras goes up over time as more people slam on their brakes at the first sign of a light changing causing rear end collisions (this stat came up during a debate in the Illinois house over a bill to repeal the red light cameras). So it would seem that endorsement from police officials, doesn't always prioritize public safety as job #1.
1 + 1 still equals 2 and just because someone can't disprove the negative, doesn't mean the tooth fairy is real.
Sorry, other than 1+1, the rest does not add up for me.
You posted that seat belt laws have "nothing" to do with public safety. You posted they have "everything" to do with the goal of "intrusive" police action.
I don't subscribe to either "absolute" as you have posted them.
I don't subscribe to the concept that seat belt laws were passed with the sinister motive of writing more tickets to generate more revenue and the like.
Seat belts have an evidentiary basis to show they reduce deaths and the seriousness of injury in demonstrated situations.
There is a legitimate public interest on each aspect.
If people choose not to wear seat belts, then they can be ticketed. If they wear belts, no ticket and no stop.
Having drivers stop at stop signs and obeying the law is a legitimate public interest. Issuing a ticket when it is proven they do not is a legitimate result of the conduct of the driver.
Sorry, I am not buying what you are selling on this one.
Look, in CA. they just opened a section of a freeway with a diamond lane. It is about 8-10 miles in duration. It can be used if the driver pays $2. Drivers can be fined $273 if they use it unlawfully.
Both clearly result in revenue generation, but one, to me is obviously focused on generating revenue for road maintenance and one is the result of enforcement for violation of the revenue law. I can choose to pay $2, I can choose to ride in the lane without doing so and potentially be ticketed for $273, or I can choose to not use the lane and pay neither.
You posted that seat belt laws have "nothing" to do with public safety. You posted they have "everything" to do with the goal of "intrusive" police action.
I don't subscribe to either "absolute" as you have posted them.
I don't subscribe to the concept that seat belt laws were passed with the sinister motive of writing more tickets to generate more revenue and the like.
Seat belts have an evidentiary basis to show they reduce deaths and the seriousness of injury in demonstrated situations.
There is a legitimate public interest on each aspect.
If people choose not to wear seat belts, then they can be ticketed. If they wear belts, no ticket and no stop.
Having drivers stop at stop signs and obeying the law is a legitimate public interest. Issuing a ticket when it is proven they do not is a legitimate result of the conduct of the driver.
Sorry, I am not buying what you are selling on this one.
Look, in CA. they just opened a section of a freeway with a diamond lane. It is about 8-10 miles in duration. It can be used if the driver pays $2. Drivers can be fined $273 if they use it unlawfully.
Both clearly result in revenue generation, but one, to me is obviously focused on generating revenue for road maintenance and one is the result of enforcement for violation of the revenue law. I can choose to pay $2, I can choose to ride in the lane without doing so and potentially be ticketed for $273, or I can choose to not use the lane and pay neither.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
Seat belts have an evidentiary basis to show they reduce deaths and the seriousness of injury in demonstrated situations.
Which brings us right back to the original point, be very suspicious of legislators that want to pass laws in the name of the greater good.
Sunscreen can unequivocally show that it helps greatly in the prevention of skin cancer that results in death and serious injury. If that becomes the threshold for passing laws, shouldn't we then have a sunscreen law?
How about a deet law. Deet has been shown to prevent mosquito bites, from both malarial and West Nile Virus carrying mosquitos. Should we pass a mandatory deet law, all citizens must wear deet during mosquito season otherwise it could result in death or serious and permanent injury?
This is the slippery slope. There is not a person alive that should have the authority to tell another how he should best protect himself from himself when the result does not infringe on anothers rights.
When we pass laws that protect me from me, we should look deeper into the root cause and reason for those laws, as there is generally more there than meets the eye. We can't fly it under the banner of "public safety", or "it's for the good of the kids", without scrutiny. In todays society, politicians throw phrases like that around in an effort to deflect scrutiny and criticism.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
Having drivers stop at stop signs and obeying the law is a legitimate public interest. Issuing a ticket when it is proven they do not is a legitimate result of the conduct of the driver.
It's stop lights, not signs, and the reason it is done this way with cameras and mailing the tickets, is because there isn't a self respecting cop out there that would be writing those violations. If you read my post, it has been shown that these cameras cause more accidents than they prevent, which is contrary to the public interest. So that leaves us with only one conclusion as to why they are still in use...revenue...and they generate a TON.
I don't think it could be any clearer.
I read your post.
You changed it after I posted.
"This is the slippery slope. There is not a person alive that should have the authority to tell another how he should best protect himself from himself when the result does not infringe on anothers rights."
I gave up listening to the "fear" argument long ago. The "Deet" issue is a red herring for me.
You might be interested to know the bill about regulating bats, that prompted this discussion, didn't seem to get the legislative support to suggest it could pass and there is little doubt the bat manufacturers would have piled money in along the way. After that, the Governor would not have signed it.
As far as self respecting police officers giving tickets to those who run red lights and stop signs, I see it happen regularly. In fact, when I drive to the health club at around 5:15am each morning, there is a police officer parked in the dark, all lights off, where he can see both a stop sign and traffic light. He regularly gives tickets for rolling stops and red light violations.
But your post above has a key component to it. "Infringe on another's rights."
Does that mean immediate rights? What "rights" are those?
1baseballdad chose not to answer this one. The young pitcher in Ohio who was struck in the head and left with severe damage. The article posted in a thread a few months back noted the family was through the $1,000,000 health insurance limit. His costs are going to be life long and be several million. The tax payers will end up paying a large portion, his family may lose most everything along the way and need some types of public support.
Are they "infringing" on your rights by seeking public/taxpayer assistance for the residuals of the brain and nervous system injury suffered when their son was struck in the head by a ball off a metal bat?
You changed it after I posted.
"This is the slippery slope. There is not a person alive that should have the authority to tell another how he should best protect himself from himself when the result does not infringe on anothers rights."
I gave up listening to the "fear" argument long ago. The "Deet" issue is a red herring for me.
You might be interested to know the bill about regulating bats, that prompted this discussion, didn't seem to get the legislative support to suggest it could pass and there is little doubt the bat manufacturers would have piled money in along the way. After that, the Governor would not have signed it.
As far as self respecting police officers giving tickets to those who run red lights and stop signs, I see it happen regularly. In fact, when I drive to the health club at around 5:15am each morning, there is a police officer parked in the dark, all lights off, where he can see both a stop sign and traffic light. He regularly gives tickets for rolling stops and red light violations.
But your post above has a key component to it. "Infringe on another's rights."
Does that mean immediate rights? What "rights" are those?
1baseballdad chose not to answer this one. The young pitcher in Ohio who was struck in the head and left with severe damage. The article posted in a thread a few months back noted the family was through the $1,000,000 health insurance limit. His costs are going to be life long and be several million. The tax payers will end up paying a large portion, his family may lose most everything along the way and need some types of public support.
Are they "infringing" on your rights by seeking public/taxpayer assistance for the residuals of the brain and nervous system injury suffered when their son was struck in the head by a ball off a metal bat?
If we really want to protect pitchers why not just raise the mound height to somewhere around 36". Far fewer comebackers regardless of what bats are used. A few high schools around here have done it and it seems to work out for their pitchers :<
)
)quote:you might be interested to know the bill about regulating bats, that prompted this discussion, didn't seem to get the legislative support to suggest it could pass and there is little doubt the bat manufacturers would have piled money in along the way.
Did you read that bill? It was a load of manure. Vague and not a single fact to back up WHY they wanted to ban anything but wood.
Seriously, that piece of legislation was a joke. If it couldn't garner support in California, that should have been the first red flag.
http://www.aroundthecapitol.co...l?bvid=20090AB791AMD
That bill is also exactly the reason why I feel the way I feel about politicians getting involved in sports. It took a tragic event and used it to push an agenda that continues to lead to exactly what I have been predicting all along. It isn't like I went out on a limb with my predictions either. Again, it isn't going to stop with mandatory headgear since these injuries will continue to happen. Bet the bank on that one.
Geez, I said the bill didn't have support to be passed, didn't I?
I sure thought I did post that.
As with many bills, it gets introduced and then, if the premise has support, it gets amended and takes on its core substance, through committee hearings, before the final votes occur.
This one didn't get that far.
This shows there is a huge difference between having a bill introduced in the legislature and having a bill passed, signed by the Governor and becoming law.
I just don't associate with your continued fear/the world is crumbling approach, just because of the bill being introduced.
The fact the bill did not move and did not get legislative support negates your position, in my view.
However, I find your "bet the bank" pretty unacceptable. They are real people who can have their lives and the lives and livelihood of their families changed forever.
Personally, I think those types of results are worth discussing and debating on this site despite all the "fear" rhetoric and "individual rights" arguments that don't apply.
Since you are the one who introduced the "bet the bank," maybe we should talk about finances.
If this happened to a pitcher in MLB/MILB, all the costs of care should be covered by workers' compensation for the team and/or MLB.
If this were college, that same argument on workers compensation might exist for a scholarship player but is iffy.
With that said, who should bear the cost for the "bet the bank" consequences of head injuries? Should it be solely the player and his family?
Should it be the hitter and his family?
Should it be the bat manufacturer or manufacturers as a group to fund the catastrophic costs?
Should it be the HS or baseball league?
Should it be the taxpayers?
Since they will occur, "bet the bank," who bears the financial consequences?
I sure thought I did post that.
As with many bills, it gets introduced and then, if the premise has support, it gets amended and takes on its core substance, through committee hearings, before the final votes occur.
This one didn't get that far.
This shows there is a huge difference between having a bill introduced in the legislature and having a bill passed, signed by the Governor and becoming law.
I just don't associate with your continued fear/the world is crumbling approach, just because of the bill being introduced.
The fact the bill did not move and did not get legislative support negates your position, in my view.
However, I find your "bet the bank" pretty unacceptable. They are real people who can have their lives and the lives and livelihood of their families changed forever.
Personally, I think those types of results are worth discussing and debating on this site despite all the "fear" rhetoric and "individual rights" arguments that don't apply.
Since you are the one who introduced the "bet the bank," maybe we should talk about finances.
If this happened to a pitcher in MLB/MILB, all the costs of care should be covered by workers' compensation for the team and/or MLB.
If this were college, that same argument on workers compensation might exist for a scholarship player but is iffy.
With that said, who should bear the cost for the "bet the bank" consequences of head injuries? Should it be solely the player and his family?
Should it be the hitter and his family?
Should it be the bat manufacturer or manufacturers as a group to fund the catastrophic costs?
Should it be the HS or baseball league?
Should it be the taxpayers?
Since they will occur, "bet the bank," who bears the financial consequences?
quote:I just don't associate with your continued fear/the world is crumbling approach, just because of the bill being introduced.
I don't have a "fear". I use common sense and look at the past to understand what WILL happen when politicians get involved. Like I said, it wasn't much of a limb I went out on when I predicted making a law prohibiting anything but wood wouldn't be the end of the line from a "safety" aspect.
There were absolutely ZERO facts to back up the assertion that metal causes more injuries than wood and when you move from having baseball police and regulate itself to putting it in the hands of the government based on those unproven safety reasons, you better be prepared for exactly what I prediced....I specifically mentioned headgear for infielders, softening the ball as well as moving the mound as other things that WILL be mandated as well since moving to a wood bat will never eliminate the type of injury that sparked this debate. All I needed to do was read that junk legislation to understand where it was going and sorry to say, I was right. Now we are staring at mandatory headgear for infielders.
That isn't fear, that is black and white common sense.
BTW...who would have ever thought we would be forced by law to print the ludicrous warning labels on things like a plastic bag so we don't put it over our head and smother ourselves. "Warning: This is not a toy"
Forgive me if I don't want that kind of intrusion in America's pastime. Fear? Hardly....It's called eyes wide open.
CPLZ,
Given your position on the intrusive nature of government don't you think the government, espcecially the DoD, should stay out of the educational process? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too?
Personally, having used every bit of my GI Bill benefits I could and having cousins who were educated by the military in return for serving in the military I'm pretty good with that government intrusion.
Given your position on the intrusive nature of government don't you think the government, espcecially the DoD, should stay out of the educational process? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too?
Personally, having used every bit of my GI Bill benefits I could and having cousins who were educated by the military in return for serving in the military I'm pretty good with that government intrusion.
quote:There were absolutely ZERO facts to back up the assertion that metal causes more injuries than wood and when you move from having baseball police and regulate itself to putting it in the hands of the government based on those unproven safety reasons, you better be prepared for exactly what I prediced.....
Yup, justbb got it right before. One trick pony. Same stuff and arguments over and over and over and......
BTW, who pays and bears all the financial consequences for the catastrophies upon which you bet the bank?
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
CPLZ,
Given your position on the intrusive nature of government don't you think the government, espcecially the DoD, should stay out of the educational process? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too?
Personally, having used every bit of my GI Bill benefits I could and having cousins who were educated by the military in return for serving in the military I'm pretty good with that government intrusion.
Other than the Service Academies, I wasn't aware the DoD was involved in the educational process...anymore than Betty Crocker is involved in the educational process by providing ingredients for school lunches. The DoD offers enlistment incentives that involve scholarship opportunities, but that's hardly involved in the educational process. Most people take "educational process" to mean the hands on implementation of educating students.
Intrusion, by definition, is entrance without permission or welcome. Please tell me how the DoD is intrusive. Legislation under false pretense however, is quite intrusive.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
The tax payers will end up paying a large portion, his family may lose most everything along the way and need some types of public support.
Are they "infringing" on your rights by seeking public/taxpayer assistance for the residuals of the brain and nervous system injury suffered when their son was struck in the head by a ball off a metal bat?
That is a very dangerous threshold you are setting the bar at for future legislation. Under that threshold, the deet argument (although meant to be illustrative of the ludicrousness of the extent to which this could be taken) is no longer a red herring, but a valid argument.
We will never shed ourselves of people becoming a burden on society by legislating against it. It's folly to try. A generation ago, it would have been ludicrous to suggest a seat belt law, now people blindly accept the false pretense that it is was created for their good. My point is, that continuation down a path where the threshold is where you suggest, will lead to acceptance a generation from now, of things you consider red herrings today. History is a wonderful teacher.
ALL CPLZ QUOTES:
I would check yourself with that one. Seat belt laws have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with generating revenue and giving police more opportunity for probable cause to pull someone over.
It's stop lights, not signs, and the reason it is done this way with cameras and mailing the tickets, is because there isn't a self respecting cop out there that would be writing those violations. If you read my post, it has been shown that these cameras cause more accidents than they prevent, which is contrary to the public interest. So that leaves us with only one conclusion as to why they are still in use...revenue...and they generate a TON.
I don't think it could be any clearer..... says "CPLZ"
Yea it could be CPLZ! And why do I care about your political views?
CPLZ ..... you need an outlet I believe. Find a radical blog somewhere and post away. Did I misread the question here, from Homerun04, about bat safety and pitchers head gear?
But rather than digress into the Topic as intended; I first want to call "Foul" and "BS" on a couple of your Soapbox comments;
I don't know how much Police experience or Public Administration background you have? But they (Police departments and municipalities)don't make any money writing tickets to those that don't buckle up. Moreover, many Municipalities are "shutting off" those intersection cameras BECAUSE they don't generate enough revenue to offset their associated costs!
Debating your opinion, or mine for that matter, of what constitues government intrusion into our lives, in the name of public safety, really isn't what most people come here to read. Reading back through your comments that's all I get. JMO ... no hard feelings.
quote:Pretty soon, we'll have legislation to prevent sunburn and mosquito bites.
I would check yourself with that one. Seat belt laws have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with generating revenue and giving police more opportunity for probable cause to pull someone over.
It's stop lights, not signs, and the reason it is done this way with cameras and mailing the tickets, is because there isn't a self respecting cop out there that would be writing those violations. If you read my post, it has been shown that these cameras cause more accidents than they prevent, which is contrary to the public interest. So that leaves us with only one conclusion as to why they are still in use...revenue...and they generate a TON.
I don't think it could be any clearer..... says "CPLZ"
Yea it could be CPLZ! And why do I care about your political views?
CPLZ ..... you need an outlet I believe. Find a radical blog somewhere and post away. Did I misread the question here, from Homerun04, about bat safety and pitchers head gear?
But rather than digress into the Topic as intended; I first want to call "Foul" and "BS" on a couple of your Soapbox comments;
I don't know how much Police experience or Public Administration background you have? But they (Police departments and municipalities)don't make any money writing tickets to those that don't buckle up. Moreover, many Municipalities are "shutting off" those intersection cameras BECAUSE they don't generate enough revenue to offset their associated costs!
Debating your opinion, or mine for that matter, of what constitues government intrusion into our lives, in the name of public safety, really isn't what most people come here to read. Reading back through your comments that's all I get. JMO ... no hard feelings.
The GI Bill applied to people who were drafted. I think that could be considered government intrusion when people who served in the military were given an advantage over those who didn't relative to gaining a college education. Personally, I used it and I'm fine with it. Enjoy your cake.
Who has to submit someone for consideration to a service academy?
Who has to submit someone for consideration to a service academy?
quote:Yup, justbb got it right before. One trick pony. Same stuff and arguments over and over and over and......
BTW, who pays and bears all the financial consequences for the catastrophies upon which you bet the bank?
Why can't you just address what I said rather than deflect and ignore it?
Can you point to a single fact in that bill that showed metals bats to create a higher incidence of serious injury over their wood counterpart?
Seriously, you falling back to that line is disappointing, to say the least.
Now, if you can show where they were relying on facts in order to ban anything but wood in AB7, I will be the first to apologize for being wrong. Certainly wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.
I think this boils down to something completely outside of baseball to be honest with you. I think you have a "go to government first to solve an issue" mentality and I want government to be an absolute last resort as an entity to go to in order to solve issues like the one being discussed..
Edit: Sorry but your last part made no sense at all so I can't address it.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
The tax payers will end up paying a large portion, his family may lose most everything along the way and need some types of public support.
Are they "infringing" on your rights by seeking public/taxpayer assistance for the residuals of the brain and nervous system injury suffered when their son was struck in the head by a ball off a metal bat?
That is a very dangerous threshold you are setting the bar at for future legislation. Under that threshold, the deet argument (although meant to be illustrative of the ludicrousness of the extent to which this could be taken) is no longer a red herring, but a valid argument.
We will never shed ourselves of people becoming a burden on society by legislating against it. It's folly to try. A generation ago, it would have been ludicrous to suggest a seat belt law, now people blindly accept the false pretense that it is was created for their good. My point is, that continuation down a path where the threshold is where you suggest, will lead to acceptance a generation from now, of things you consider red herrings today. History is a wonderful teacher.
I am not "setting any threshhold." I am asking a very real world question.
This one real world very practical question: who pays? The doctors won't do it for free.
The hospitals won't do it for free.
The PT/speech pathologist, nurses, long term care givers, DME folks won't give away their products or services.
You don't want your "rights" intruded upon. Are you saying that family in Ohio just needs to "suck it up" and lose their house, their family, all their personal belongings, have their son survive as severely disabled and brain damaged without access to medical care. That family actually had medical insurance. What about those who don't have health care or might when the "health care bill" can get figured out?
Since 1baseballdad wants us to "bank on it" that these head injuries are a given and you don't want us to "go down that path" that history teaches, who absorbs the financial costs? This is no red herring.
These are real today issues.
quote:Originally posted by Prime9:
Debating your opinion, or mine for that matter, of what constitues government intrusion into our lives, in the name of public safety, really isn't what most people come here to read.
If you had more experience here, you'd realize that topics such as this are often debated and discussed, hopefully, civilly. There is no thought police that says a thread started on one subject must remain tunneled in that topic and that topic only. There have been some great threads that have taken a number of different twists and turns. Some of the people here that are diametrically opposed to me on this stance, I have long history with and great respect for.
We can disagree all we want. Let's try and just speak for ourselves though...as I need to be reminded of occasionally also.
The ball comes off the bat faster. That is pretty well documented. It isn't difficult to make the link to a higher risk. In absolute terms the risk to any given pitcher isn't that much higher. For any pitcher struck by a batted ball the risk is higher and that risk includes a greater chance of death. The downside to implementing the new bats or wood is fewer runs and more talent being required to hit.
1baseballdad,
Who among your family or friends works for or with a bat manufacturer?
CPLZ,
I respect your opinion on this even though I don't agree. I'm just trying to poke a little hole in it.
1baseballdad,
Who among your family or friends works for or with a bat manufacturer?
CPLZ,
I respect your opinion on this even though I don't agree. I'm just trying to poke a little hole in it.
quote:There is one very practical question: who pays? The doctors won't do it for free.
The hospitals won't do it for free.
The PT/speech pathologist, nurses, long term care givers, DME folks won't give away their products or services.
You don't want your "rights" intruded upon. Are you saying that family in Ohio just needs to "suck it up" and lose their house, their family, all their personal belongings, have their son survive as severely disabled and brain damaged without access to medical care.
Since 1baseballdad wants us to "bank on it" and you don't want us to "got down that path" that history teaches, who absorbs the financial costs? This is no red herring.
These are real today issues.
Who pays for what? An injury when a ball batted off a metal bat injures a pitcher or an infielder?
I would guess the same people that would pay for it if the ball came off a wood bat. Am I wrong? Are you trying to say people aren't severely injured or killed from balls hit off wood bats?
Again, I will ask you to please point out specifically what part of that bill showed that metal bats have a higher incidence of severely injuring infielders.
It's all I ask and you keep ignoring it. You will not answer it because you know it isn't there.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
I am not "setting any threshhold." I am asking a very real world question.
This one real world very practical question: who pays? The doctors won't do it for free.
The hospitals won't do it for free.
The PT/speech pathologist, nurses, long term care givers, DME folks won't give away their products or services.
You don't want your "rights" intruded upon. Are you saying that family in Ohio just needs to "suck it up" and lose their house, their family, all their personal belongings, have their son survive as severely disabled and brain damaged without access to medical care.
Since 1baseballdad wants us to "bank on it" and you don't want us to "go down that path" that history teaches, who absorbs the financial costs? This is no red herring.
These are real today issues.
We, taxpayers, pay, of course. But I don't understand your point.
Determining the threshold for government intervention is as real world question as yours. Do we need a series of laws to prevent financial burden on society? If so, what is that threshold?
Without that answer, we can just keep going down a path, where a legislator can bring up the fatality de jour, and legislate to prevent it.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
The ball comes off the bat faster. That is pretty well documented. It isn't difficult to make the link to a higher risk. In absolute terms the risk to any given pitcher isn't that much higher. For any pitcher struck by a batted ball the risk is higher and that risk includes a greater chance of death. The downside to implementing the new bats or wood is fewer runs and more talent being required to hit.
1baseballdad,
Who among your family or friends works for or with a bat manufacturer?
I agree, it isn't difficult to make that leap. However, the FACTS don't show it to be true. Now if that is the theory you want to use to have the baseball community move forward with changing the rules and the community agrees, that is fantastic. Absolutely the way it should be done. Agree or disagree with the premise, it doesn't matter. The baseball community spoke.
Making LAWS of of such theories is a whole different ball of wax and one you don't seem to understand. Make a law based on no facts and what is next? Mandated headgear for infielders?
For goodness sakes, get over the baseball manufacture red herring and try to discuss this like an adult. Seriously...
I notice you didn't answer my question about your ties to bat manufacturers and in fact tried to evade the question with your red herring bit. One can assume that you are more than a little biased in this matter.
You keep saying that the FACTS don't show it to be true. That is a fallacy. Virtually none of us accept that statement no matter how many times you type it or how boldly you type FACTS.
BTW, we make a lot of laws without basis in fact, without adequate funding sources and often in contradiction of facts here in CA. We can't even blame government. We do it to ourselves with propositions.
You keep saying that the FACTS don't show it to be true. That is a fallacy. Virtually none of us accept that statement no matter how many times you type it or how boldly you type FACTS.
BTW, we make a lot of laws without basis in fact, without adequate funding sources and often in contradiction of facts here in CA. We can't even blame government. We do it to ourselves with propositions.
quote:Again, I will ask you to please point out specifically what part of that bill showed that metal bats have a higher incidence of severely injuring infielders.
The bill did not pass. It did not get into or out of committee. What more do you need to know? Why are you wanting to debate the bill? It didn't get support! It is not the law. Some are turning this into something about government legislating and intruding on sports. Government didn't do anything. The bill did not get anywhere. Why are you arguing about what government did, when it did nothing?
Oh, and since you are the expert, can you cite for me or refer me to the number of infielders stuck in the head this year or last who sustained catastrophic head injuries vis a vis the number of pitchers?
Who pays?
I love how you play the "victim" card so many, many times when you simultaneously post that others are "slow" or your thoughts are "reasoned," suggesting others are not, and now you post "discuss this like an adult."
1baseballdad, you are not "victim" in my view. You just like to use it when convenient.
I have seen your FACT position so many times on this board...justbb is right.
I also remember your comment on how thankful you were your son does not pitch.
quote:If you had more experience here,
Thanks CPLZ for pointing out my "lack of experience." At my age, it actually feels good knowing I lack experience at anything.....
Experiences learned in other facets of life;
"stick to the matter at hand," "respond to the question," "stay on task," "never discuss politics or religion," let me down here..
Start another thread, "they will come."
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
The GI Bill applied to people who were drafted. I think that could be considered government intrusion when people who served in the military were given an advantage over those who didn't relative to gaining a college education. Personally, I used it and I'm fine with it. Enjoy your cake.
Who has to submit someone for consideration to a service academy?
Government intrusion is needed in matters of National Defense/Security and public saftey. I would consider the education they offered you part of the compensation you got for serving our country. (And I thank you!!) I have no problem with that. Personally, I have a problem with the government regulating my own personal safety.
That includes saftey belt use and the equipment my son uses to play baseball with. I am not saying that pitchers wearing head gear is a bad idea. Just that it should be a baseball regulation, not a government legislative issue.
bballman,
thank you for the thoughtful response.
I agree fully with you that these are not necessarily polar opposites or black/white types of discussions.
This morning I listened to Joe Scarborough, a thoughtful conservative, interview former President Clinton on the economy.
In less than 5 minutes, they presented clear cut issues for political debate and decision, with an acknowledgment neither political side is on focus.
What they presented is there are more job openings in the US than workers qualified for them. People need to be retrained for the current job and employment demands. If that was done quickly, if every opening were filled, the unemployment rate would be 6%, not 9%.
They also discussed that the banks have over $1.5 trillion in cash on hand/reserves. Makes me sick but they also borrow from the Government at less than .5% and loan back at 3-4%. US business has $1.7 trillion, I think they said.
Over $3 Trillion invested but not in people, jobs or the economy.
What they concluded is that Government needs to debate and focus on these and find ways for the $3 Trillion to be invested and at the same time Government needs to gear up and train, quickly, to fill jobs.
This is not public safety or national security or or defense.
We have an economic nightmare and mess. Some government is responsible for the mess, some private sector is responsible or the mess, i.e., subprime/CDO's and the like.
My question is does government have a role in these issues?
If I am one of the 85 to 90% with a job, is government intruding on my individual rights by implementing tax policy and other legislation for those unemployed?
Government taxes alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline for various reasons.
Instead of legislation to require a pitcher's helmet(which does not exist), would you oppose a tax on bats/baseball equipment to create a fund to pay medical expenses for those severely and permanently impaired by being struck in the face or head?
I realize I went around the block a bit, but I truly am interested in a dialogue about the individual rights to determine actions/in-actions vs the public good and public policy aspects where government action and even intrusion is seen as needed and required..welcomed
. Of course, it has to relate to baseball! 
thank you for the thoughtful response.
I agree fully with you that these are not necessarily polar opposites or black/white types of discussions.
This morning I listened to Joe Scarborough, a thoughtful conservative, interview former President Clinton on the economy.
In less than 5 minutes, they presented clear cut issues for political debate and decision, with an acknowledgment neither political side is on focus.
What they presented is there are more job openings in the US than workers qualified for them. People need to be retrained for the current job and employment demands. If that was done quickly, if every opening were filled, the unemployment rate would be 6%, not 9%.
They also discussed that the banks have over $1.5 trillion in cash on hand/reserves. Makes me sick but they also borrow from the Government at less than .5% and loan back at 3-4%. US business has $1.7 trillion, I think they said.
Over $3 Trillion invested but not in people, jobs or the economy.
What they concluded is that Government needs to debate and focus on these and find ways for the $3 Trillion to be invested and at the same time Government needs to gear up and train, quickly, to fill jobs.
This is not public safety or national security or or defense.
We have an economic nightmare and mess. Some government is responsible for the mess, some private sector is responsible or the mess, i.e., subprime/CDO's and the like.
My question is does government have a role in these issues?
If I am one of the 85 to 90% with a job, is government intruding on my individual rights by implementing tax policy and other legislation for those unemployed?
Government taxes alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline for various reasons.
Instead of legislation to require a pitcher's helmet(which does not exist), would you oppose a tax on bats/baseball equipment to create a fund to pay medical expenses for those severely and permanently impaired by being struck in the face or head?
I realize I went around the block a bit, but I truly am interested in a dialogue about the individual rights to determine actions/in-actions vs the public good and public policy aspects where government action and even intrusion is seen as needed and required..welcomed
Has this become a political site?
Infielddad, I really don't want to make this into a huge political discussion. That being said, my view is that the government's role, in general, should be to implement policies to assist people to help themselves, not actually do the helping themselves.
How can this relate to this issue in baseball? As far as I know, every level of organized baseball requires some type of insurance to cover on field incidents. I believe that is in addition to an individual's private insurance. Rec leagues have it, to play in a USSSA, 3Crown, Nations, I would assume college and pretty sure MLB covers all their players on an insurance plan. How can the government get involved in this? How about making contributions for catastrophic injuries tax deductible or tax free? That is different than taxing us to create a fund for medical expenses. That would turn into another Social Security debacle. That way, every organization or insurance company who provides insurance for the different levels of baseball can fund their own pool in the event of a catastrophic injury.
The fact of the matter is, I don't think it happens enough to make a big dent in the insurance companies profits. If they could be incentivized to take care of this themselves, it would probably not be an issue. Part of the problem is that everyone is so worried about how much the government is going to take, they don't want to make any moves with what they have.
This is very much an oversimplification and certainly does not cover all the bases. We live in a very complex society. However, my philosophy of the government creating incentives for society to help themselves rather than the government directly helping holds true.
How can this relate to this issue in baseball? As far as I know, every level of organized baseball requires some type of insurance to cover on field incidents. I believe that is in addition to an individual's private insurance. Rec leagues have it, to play in a USSSA, 3Crown, Nations, I would assume college and pretty sure MLB covers all their players on an insurance plan. How can the government get involved in this? How about making contributions for catastrophic injuries tax deductible or tax free? That is different than taxing us to create a fund for medical expenses. That would turn into another Social Security debacle. That way, every organization or insurance company who provides insurance for the different levels of baseball can fund their own pool in the event of a catastrophic injury.
The fact of the matter is, I don't think it happens enough to make a big dent in the insurance companies profits. If they could be incentivized to take care of this themselves, it would probably not be an issue. Part of the problem is that everyone is so worried about how much the government is going to take, they don't want to make any moves with what they have.
This is very much an oversimplification and certainly does not cover all the bases. We live in a very complex society. However, my philosophy of the government creating incentives for society to help themselves rather than the government directly helping holds true.
I also would very much prefer not to make this a major political discussion, especially since the thread is started by legislation that did not pass.
Thank you for your input and thoughts to address those who suffer the devastating consequences of these types of injuries,with a goal being for them to not individually absorb the financial, familial and emotional impact.
How that gets done involves some idea making. I like some of your thoughts. Thanks.
Maybe this will even be less an issue for concern and discussion with the new bat standards.
Thank you for your input and thoughts to address those who suffer the devastating consequences of these types of injuries,with a goal being for them to not individually absorb the financial, familial and emotional impact.
How that gets done involves some idea making. I like some of your thoughts. Thanks.
Maybe this will even be less an issue for concern and discussion with the new bat standards.
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
No way should this happen !!!!
All sports have inherent dangers----you just have to live with them
I am not sure I agree. While I am against government intervention in much of our everyday lives, this is an area where someone needs to regulate how advanced the bats should be. For instance rules are made about equipment to prevent unfair advantages(i.e. cheating)in many sports. So why not address how much more dangerous metal/composite bats have made the game?
Lets face it, before these bats came along wood was used by everyone. I'll bet dollars to donuts many people did not want the change back then. Now we have them due to $$$ being the overriding factor, and kids are being killed and permanently injured as a result.
quote:Originally posted by bballman:
Although others disagree with me, legislating me to wear a seatbelt is another one of those areas. I will hurt no one else if I don't wear my seatbelt.
I can see you are passionate about the whole government intervention issue, and I'd probably agree with many of your stances. That said, you comment about seat belts is very inaccurate. If you are securely buckled in, you are much less likely to lose control of the car. If you make to sharp a turn, skid on ice, etc. and slide around in the cabin, you could very well hit a pedestrian, another car, etc. Also if you have any passengers, you could smash into them during an accident where as they would not have been struck by you if you were belted in. Think about it and reconsider your position on at least this one issue.
quote:My son is a pitcher and I do not fear his getting hit in the head. It is a risk I am willing to accept. I definitely am more concerned about him driving a car and the risks associated with that than I am concerned about him getting hit in the head on the pitchers mound.
I suspect you have calculated the odds of it happening, and accept the inherent risk/odds. However if the odds are say 1 in 10,000 that a come backer will strike him in the face/head/chest, it will be of little comfort if your son is that one kid in 10,000.
God willing none of our kids will be stuck by a ball but common sense restrictions on metal bats should be put into place. I'm sure they can deaden the bats to the same level as wood, thus making them safer and still be cost effective. That would help to protect everyone, players and fans alike.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
I notice you didn't answer my question about your ties to bat manufacturers and in fact tried to evade the question with your red herring bit.
How many times do I have to tell you that I have no ties to the bat industry? My family has no ties to the bat industry. I have no investments in any materials that bats are made of. I have no friends with ties to the bat industry or ties to companies that produce materials for bats. In fact, neither my dog nor my cat have any ties to the bat industry. I haven’t asked the opossum that occasional makes his way into the garage to nab my cats food but I assume he doesn’t have any ties to the bat industry as well.
See, the thing is, I have told you this over and over and either you have a very bad memory or you would rather throw out that red herring in order to NOT deal with the opinions I express that are in direct contradiction to your arguments. It seems to be a very comfortable place for you to go.
It's ok. I understand. Some people simply can't stand on the merits of their opinions when confronted with facts that directly contradict them or forces you to examine them.
I get it.
Vector, to your first point. not sure I have ever heard of someone killing a pedestrian because they lost control of a car specifically because they were not "secured" in their seat. I know I have never heard of anyone severely injured in a car wreck from two passengers colliding into one another. The odds of either one of them happening are so minuscule that I don't believe it justifies an entire country losing the right to decide whether or not they should wear a seatbelt. It really should be an individual decision.
In regard to your other point, there are many, many things we do that have a risk associated with them. If we attempted to eliminate everyone of them, we would be immobilized. The chances of one of our kids getting killed or critically injured in a car wreck (whether or not a seatbelt is worn) are FAR greater the the possibility that they will be hit in the head with a batted ball. Yet we continue to allow our kids behind the wheel of a car or allow them to drive with us and subject them to that risk. Why? Because we are willing to take that risk for the sake of convenience, necessity or enjoyment.
I'm not against having a standard that brings metal/composite bats more in line with wood bats - if that's what baseball wants to do. Remember, that will still not eliminate the risk, only lessen it slightly. Personally, I prefer the wood bat game. Not because of the risk of injury, but as the dad of a pitcher, those hits off the sweet spot on a wood bat are more often outs than they are with a metal bat. Hitters have to be better with wood. Good pitches are more often rewarded when wood bats are used. Like I said, I'm not against change in baseball necessarily, I'm against the government becoming way too intrusive in our lives. This is a baseball issue, not a federal or state government issue.
Could you imagine what our founding fathers would have thought if the government they designed tried to regulate how they played horseshoes or roundball or whatever types of games or sport they played back in that day? It may have literally spurned another revolution.
In regard to your other point, there are many, many things we do that have a risk associated with them. If we attempted to eliminate everyone of them, we would be immobilized. The chances of one of our kids getting killed or critically injured in a car wreck (whether or not a seatbelt is worn) are FAR greater the the possibility that they will be hit in the head with a batted ball. Yet we continue to allow our kids behind the wheel of a car or allow them to drive with us and subject them to that risk. Why? Because we are willing to take that risk for the sake of convenience, necessity or enjoyment.
I'm not against having a standard that brings metal/composite bats more in line with wood bats - if that's what baseball wants to do. Remember, that will still not eliminate the risk, only lessen it slightly. Personally, I prefer the wood bat game. Not because of the risk of injury, but as the dad of a pitcher, those hits off the sweet spot on a wood bat are more often outs than they are with a metal bat. Hitters have to be better with wood. Good pitches are more often rewarded when wood bats are used. Like I said, I'm not against change in baseball necessarily, I'm against the government becoming way too intrusive in our lives. This is a baseball issue, not a federal or state government issue.
Could you imagine what our founding fathers would have thought if the government they designed tried to regulate how they played horseshoes or roundball or whatever types of games or sport they played back in that day? It may have literally spurned another revolution.
quote:The bill did not pass. It did not get into or out of committee. What more do you need to know? Why are you wanting to debate the bill?
Umm...infielddad? From earlier in the thread....I didn't say it.
quote:
you might be interested to know the bill about regulating bats, that prompted this discussion, didn't seem to get the legislative support to suggest it could pass and there is little doubt the bat manufacturers would have piled money in along the way.
So again, you never answered.
Who pays for the people nailed by a ball hit off a wood bat?
You act as if you wrote that Bill. You take it very personally when someone criticizes it, to the point of blindly defending it. Did you have a hand in crafting it?
Vector,
You and others are obviously concerned because your son is a pitcher, does he bat? Do you think about the pitcher on the mound when your son becomes the hitter? Most people don't. Dom't get me wrong, I do not disagree with you, I just find it rather interesting that parnets of younger players are so concerned when they had opportunities to stop teh madness (not buy the 300 dollars plus rocket launchers).
How many years have we heard this debate, I am sure that we all understand the dangers, why didn't parents, and coaches just take the metal out of the players hands years ago when they evloved and grew into deadly weapons? My son grew up on metal in LL, but we went to Kmart and bought one for 30 bucks, no one that I know of got seriously hurt at that age, mostly where the very serious life threatening injuries usually occur.
You and others are obviously concerned because your son is a pitcher, does he bat? Do you think about the pitcher on the mound when your son becomes the hitter? Most people don't. Dom't get me wrong, I do not disagree with you, I just find it rather interesting that parnets of younger players are so concerned when they had opportunities to stop teh madness (not buy the 300 dollars plus rocket launchers).
How many years have we heard this debate, I am sure that we all understand the dangers, why didn't parents, and coaches just take the metal out of the players hands years ago when they evloved and grew into deadly weapons? My son grew up on metal in LL, but we went to Kmart and bought one for 30 bucks, no one that I know of got seriously hurt at that age, mostly where the very serious life threatening injuries usually occur.