Oprah?

Information and ideas that aren't about baseball, but that you think the community would appreciate, go here.

Oprah?

Postby 41Forever » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:21 pm

User avatar
41Forever
375) Scott Rice, RP, 2013-2014

Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:49 pm
Thoughts?

Would she team up with Uma? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/letterman-oprah-uma-joke-oscars_n_6950490.html

I think the pendulum swings, and it will swing back toward a more traditional politician in three or seven years.

Re: Oprah?

Postby batmagadanleadoff » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:24 pm

User avatar
batmagadanleadoff
J.P. Ricciardi. Special Assistant to the GM

Posts: 15101
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:47 pm
She's a nice gal, I can tell you that. And the pendulum's due to swing back to someone who's not deranged.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Lefty Specialist » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:20 pm

User avatar
Lefty Specialist
70) Dave Magadan, 1B, 3B, 1986-1991

Posts: 5669
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Location, Location.
The solution to someone totally unqualified to be President is NOT to run someone else totally unqualified to be President.
Only in today's America can policy be based on the notion that the rich have too little and the poor have too much.

Resistance is not futile. https://www.indivisibleguide.com/indivisible-action

Re: Oprah?

Postby Ceetar » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:38 pm

User avatar
Ceetar
Jane Jarvis, Organist, 1964-1979

Posts: 20791
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Moving target: Check Big Apple Brews
Lefty Specialist wrote:The solution to someone totally unqualified to be President is NOT to run someone else totally unqualified to be President.


mr small hands isn't a bad president because he's unqualified/not a politician, he's unqualified because he's a bad person that doesn't care about other people. I don't believe you have to be a Harvard Lawyer to be a good president, or hell, a congressperson. I think the country might be better off if it had MORE 'unqualified' people, not less.
"Look, would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?"

-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan

Re: Oprah?

Postby Edgy MD » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:58 pm

User avatar
Edgy MD
Rube Walker — Pitching Coach, 1968–1981

Posts: 90789
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 2:03 pm
Location: Baltimore
There was this scene in the first couple of days or two of Congressman Sonny Bono's Washington-is-Mars act, where he took his time at a committee meeting to criticize his colleagues for showing off their erudition, using "legalese" as they discussed the bills before them.

The Congressman who was particularly being chided came back with, "But Congressman Bono, we're writing laws."

I'll take qualified, experienced lawmakers at our highest levels of government, given half a choice.
I'll be your patron saint of heartbreak.

Re: Oprah?

Postby metsmarathon » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:17 pm

User avatar
metsmarathon
shea stadium's running met

Posts: 11414
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: miles from the start, and miles from the finish
I mean, you kinda want people who understand laws writing them.

Not all of government is writing laws mind you, but understanding law is indeed fairly important. You probably want someone with an engineering background running the high tech company right?

I agree we need more diverse pool of politicians, with a broader base of experience beyond just law (like tech, science, education, etc fields would be good) but to think that lawers make poor writers of law is folly.
the first step is admitting you're a runner.

running is a mental sport, and we're all insane.

"i think that's why the marathon is so addicting. because you always want more." - shalane flanagan

Re: Oprah?

Postby Nymr83 » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:15 am

User avatar
Nymr83
Bob Murphy, Voice of the Mets, 1962-2003

Posts: 14465
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:18 pm
I think it is a good thing to get people who have a history of doing more than politics into office. I don't think that should start at the presidency. someone with no political experience running for the House seems fine with me.
Well, I've got nothing against the bunt, in its place. But most of the time that place is the bottom of a long-forgotten closet. -Earl Weaver

Re: Oprah?

Postby Ceetar » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:36 am

User avatar
Ceetar
Jane Jarvis, Organist, 1964-1979

Posts: 20791
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Moving target: Check Big Apple Brews
metsmarathon wrote:I mean, you kinda want people who understand laws writing them.

Not all of government is writing laws mind you, but understanding law is indeed fairly important. You probably want someone with an engineering background running the high tech company right?

I agree we need more diverse pool of politicians, with a broader base of experience beyond just law (like tech, science, education, etc fields would be good) but to think that lawers make poor writers of law is folly.


engineering background is not necessarily an engineer. I want someone that's a good leader, and I don't care if that person's 22 either. Decision making, particularly one where you're fed facts and information from other, hopefully, intelligent and informed people is not necessarily a trait that you get better at with experience.

yes, there are some legal technical stuff that a president has to undertake, but a non-lawyer/non-politician would then be expected to hire a law expert at two to help guide her. lawyers are not some magical gatekeepers to a trove a special knowledge that only they've been trained to interpret.

And also, to think lawyers make good writers of law (And the president shouldn't be writing laws, theoretically) is also folly. does a food critic make a good chef? does a good reader make a good writer? It helps, sure. there's an experience factor. "I know the cheese goes between the bread because I've reviewed these from the other side" is nice, but also you could just ask your expert when you want to build a grilled cheese.

But sure, I come at from the opinion of wanting vast change and innovation. I want cutting edge science investment, banning driving a car in the near future, and withdrawing troops from much of the world. among other things. I'm not particularly interested in another career politician that well gradually nudge things along instead of setting/holding us back. Because that's roughly what we get nowadays. You can elect the democrat that'll edge us forward where she can, or the republican that will either hold us back, or set us back, as a country.

But then again, maybe if we could stop slipping in the setting us back guys the progress would seem more incremental? I'm open to finding out at least.
"Look, would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?"

-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan

Re: Oprah?

Postby 41Forever » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 am

User avatar
41Forever
375) Scott Rice, RP, 2013-2014

Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:49 pm
Banning driving a car in the near future? Do you mean that because you favor the move to autonomous vehicles or do you think we all should only have access to bikes and trains?

Re: Oprah?

Postby Ceetar » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:50 am

User avatar
Ceetar
Jane Jarvis, Organist, 1964-1979

Posts: 20791
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Moving target: Check Big Apple Brews
41Forever wrote:Banning driving a car in the near future? Do you mean that because you favor the move to autonomous vehicles or do you think we all should only have access to bikes and trains?


autonomous. The process will go so much faster if we remove the human element (I'm aware this is extremely unlikely)
"Look, would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?"

-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan

Re: Oprah?

Postby Edgy MD » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:30 am

User avatar
Edgy MD
Rube Walker — Pitching Coach, 1968–1981

Posts: 90789
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 2:03 pm
Location: Baltimore
Nymr83 wrote:I think it is a good thing to get people who have a history of doing more than politics into office. I don't think that should start at the presidency. someone with no political experience running for the House seems fine with me.

That's pretty much sensible.

Ceetar wrote:And also, to think lawyers make good writers of law (And the president shouldn't be writing laws, theoretically) is also folly. does a food critic make a good chef?

Anybody else think this analogy doesn't work?

It also distorts the position of other people.
I'll be your patron saint of heartbreak.

Re: Oprah?

Postby 41Forever » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:48 am

User avatar
41Forever
375) Scott Rice, RP, 2013-2014

Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:49 pm
Edgy MD wrote:
Nymr83 wrote:I think it is a good thing to get people who have a history of doing more than politics into office. I don't think that should start at the presidency. someone with no political experience running for the House seems fine with me.

That's pretty much sensible.

Ceetar wrote:And also, to think lawyers make good writers of law (And the president shouldn't be writing laws, theoretically) is also folly. does a food critic make a good chef?

Anybody else think this analogy doesn't work?

It also distorts the position of other people.


Technically, the staff writes the bills, and a lot of them have law degrees. But it's good to know what's in them and it sure does help if you know the legalese.

Interesting aside: The top profession of lawmakers is attorneys. The second? Insurance agents. Lots of money in insurance. Also explains why you have trouble getting insurance reform laws passed.

That said, we work with a lot of state lawmakers, and there are very good ones from a wide variety of professions -- dairy farmers, doctors, business people, people who started in local government and working up.

Re: Oprah?

Postby metirish » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:01 am

User avatar
metirish
Pete Flynn — Head Groundskeeper, Assistant Groundskeeper, 1962–2007

Posts: 34393
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:22 pm
Location: Bronx
I don't know , I'm not overly excited , as former talk show hosts go Jerry Springer would be my pick.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Benjamin Grimm » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:06 am

User avatar
Benjamin Grimm
Ralph Kiner
Hall of Famer/Broadcaster

Posts: 42479
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 7:49 am
Location: The Baxter Building
Or maybe Space Ghost.

Image

Oprah wouldn't be my choice to be the next President, but if we had the chance to put her in office tomorrow, I'd be all for it. To revive an old CPF chestnut, "she can't be worse than what we already have."

I would certainly prefer kind and compassionate and inexperienced over selfish and vulgar and ignorant and inexperienced.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Ceetar » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:09 am

User avatar
Ceetar
Jane Jarvis, Organist, 1964-1979

Posts: 20791
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Moving target: Check Big Apple Brews
in a nutshell there is more than one way to skin a cat, especially a cat that is as problem ridden as the government. I'm on board with trying new approaches, and if that's hiring smart or compassion people or whatever, then fine.
"Look, would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?"

-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan

Re: Oprah?

Postby Benjamin Grimm » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:10 am

User avatar
Benjamin Grimm
Ralph Kiner
Hall of Famer/Broadcaster

Posts: 42479
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 7:49 am
Location: The Baxter Building
And this is weird. The Daily News pulled this cover from their archives, from 1999:

Image

Re: Oprah?

Postby Centerfield » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:26 am

User avatar
Centerfield
3) Dwight Gooden, SP, RP, 1984-1994

Posts: 10012
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:37 am
Benjamin Grimm wrote:Or maybe Space Ghost.

Image

Oprah wouldn't be my choice to be the next President, but if we had the chance to put her in office tomorrow, I'd be all for it. To revive an old CPF chestnut, "she can't be worse than what we already have."

I would certainly prefer kind and compassionate and inexperienced over selfish and vulgar and ignorant and inexperienced.


All of this. Including the Space Ghost part.

Re: Oprah?

Postby metsmarathon » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

User avatar
metsmarathon
shea stadium's running met

Posts: 11414
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: miles from the start, and miles from the finish
engineering background is not necessarily an engineer.
sure. i guess shame on me for using lawyer to indicate law background. law background helps in writing laws. engineering background helps when engineering stuff. coding background helps when writing software. if your're writing laws relevant to a specific field, ie dairy farming, it helps to have insight into dairy farming, just as if you're writing laws that affect science thingies, you want a science background. i guess what we need are intelligent people from diverse backgrounds that also have an understanding of law thingies.
I want someone that's a good leader, and I don't care if that person's 22 either. Decision making, particularly one where you're fed facts and information from other, hopefully, intelligent and informed people is not necessarily a trait that you get better at with experience.
i want good leaders too. it's really hard to demonstrate that you're a good leader at 22. i guess we'll just take the guy who just led his college sportball team to their most recent sportball championship. i disagree strongly that decision-making and leadership does not improve with age. with age comes experience and maturity. you typically need both to make good decisions. the advantage of youth is that you presumably are more ripe to incorporate new technical information. lets find a balance before turning the country over to the snot-nosed kids who just fell out of their fraternities the night before.

yes, there are some legal technical stuff that a president has to undertake, but a non-lawyer/non-politician would then be expected to hire a law expert at two to help guide her. lawyers are not some magical gatekeepers to a trove a special knowledge that only they've been trained to interpret.
this fits within my paradigm of having a broad-based group of people involved in the lawmaking. you don't want none lawyers, just as you don't want all lawyers.

And also, to think lawyers make good writers of law (And the president shouldn't be writing laws, theoretically) is also folly. does a food critic make a good chef? does a good reader make a good writer? It helps, sure. there's an experience factor. "I know the cheese goes between the bread because I've reviewed these from the other side" is nice, but also you could just ask your expert when you want to build a grilled cheese.
if you don't have a good law expert guy involved in the writing of the laws, you'll find a law full of holes for a good law guy to find a way through and around. how is a food critic akin to a law expert in your analogy? a successful food critic, unless they're just a guy with a blog and a personality who developed a following, should have a solid foundation in the culinary arts, ideally with lots of studying and learning, so that tehy actually know about what they're critiquing. they may not be able to execute the requisite knife skills, or have the ability to conjure up new dishes on a whim, but they do need to understand that which they critique. i think the reverse of your analogy is more true to the point. a good chef would make a fine food critic, no? the chef is the guy making the laws here. and the food critic is the one using and applying those laws. i suppose. a good writer is probably also a good reader. i think your analogies as presented are all backwards here. is the chef or the critic the lawmaker? is the writer or reader the lawmaker?

if you want to hire a chef, you want the one with the strongest culinary background, right? if you want a writer, you want the one with the literary background. if you want a good law-writer, you want one with a law background. if you want an engineer, you want one who studied engineering.

now, if you want an engineer to build you a car, you want one who has a background in automotive engineering. a software engineer is going to be fairly useless here, much as a chemical engineer. but your mechanical engineer isn't going to be great at designing a new chemical reactor chamber, and your chem eng probably isn't going to develop a CMMI level III information systems framework. (actually mechanical engineers are awesome and can do everything, but that's hardly the point here)

But sure, I come at from the opinion of wanting vast change and innovation.


change and innovation got us donald trump. i want demonstrated experience and knowledge of that which they desire to change.

I want cutting edge science investment, banning driving a car in the near future, and withdrawing troops from much of the world. among other things. I'm not particularly interested in another career politician that well gradually nudge things along instead of setting/holding us back. Because that's roughly what we get nowadays. You can elect the democrat that'll edge us forward where she can, or the republican that will either hold us back, or set us back, as a country.

But then again, maybe if we could stop slipping in the setting us back guys the progress would seem more incremental? I'm open to finding out at least.


i want many of these things! cutting edge science investment - good! very good! tremendous! more of that! all of that! so much good!

banning driving a car. uh... ... ...

i mean, this is a tangent to dive off onto, but.. um. that ain't going to happen. no way. no how. not any time soon. there will always be a market for, and a need for, manually operated vehicles. you'll have an easier time with an outright ban on firearms than on banning manually operated motor vehicles. certainly not in this century. we're still decade(s) away from autonomous vehicles being a viable thing. forcing them to be the only means of motorized transportation is a pipe dream at this point. it shouldn't even be on any serious politician's or policy-maker's radar. you know, horses and bicycles are legal on most motorways. it would certainly make autonomous vehicles easier if they didn't have to worry about pesky humans getting in their way, but pesky humans and unexpected circumstances will always have to be in the mix, unless we outlaw deer and other sources of roadkill. and if you've got an autonomous vehicle that can handle a deer darting out across a highway, you can handle a human operator acting like a human.

and as long as anyone's got a military, we should have a military. and it's to our benefit to have our military spread out around the world. better still if they would do so without fighting. and that's the part to focus on.

we have a government which handles trillions of dollars and is responsible for 300 million citizens, is massively influential in the world economy and contributes greatly to international diplomacy, peace, and yes, war. incremental change is probably for the better, as massive unintended consequences tend to have wide-reaching impacts.

a government comprised of only one flavor of voice would be horribly disastrous. the balancing voices are important and useful. at least, when teh both sides of the argument try to work together towards achieving the common goal of governance and leadership.

our shit is indeed broken right now, but ousting all of one side isn't the answer, nor is blindly following one path. and also, neither is jettisoning anyone with experience or expertise in the matter.

we need to find the right people for the job. by evaluating those specific people for the specific jobs. not by making blanket claims and assumptions about what we want and don't want.

back to oprah. she would be an interesting voice. and would add an interesting dynamic to any campaign she was a part of. i'm not convinced that she can run a country, but i'm not pre-disposed to thinking that she cannot. it's just that the evidence of her celebrity is not nearly enough evidence. celebrity or entertainering is not a disqualifier. so lets talk about her qualifications...?
the first step is admitting you're a runner.

running is a mental sport, and we're all insane.

"i think that's why the marathon is so addicting. because you always want more." - shalane flanagan

Re: Oprah?

Postby Edgy MD » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:04 pm

User avatar
Edgy MD
Rube Walker — Pitching Coach, 1968–1981

Posts: 90789
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 2:03 pm
Location: Baltimore
It's most typical that somebody from a professional background like dairy farming would join the house or a state legislature, and get put on committees relevant to that real-world background (agricultural subsidies, labor, antitrust, interstate trucking), and do their deepest work in that field, and take the advice of trusted staff and colleagues on stuff he or she isn't particularly versed in.

Then, gradually getting his or her feet wet, he or she becomes versed in the finer points of law — unintended consequences, Constitutional concerns, torts, the social effects of different types of sentencing ... and gradually becomes more of a nuanced lawmaker, and less vulnerable to manipulation by crafty, self-interested parties.

None of that says a dairy farmer shouldn't be a lawmaker. Quite the opposite. (Was Harry Truman's family in dairy?) But I'm not keen on one going straight to the big chair.
I'll be your patron saint of heartbreak.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Ceetar » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:08 pm

User avatar
Ceetar
Jane Jarvis, Organist, 1964-1979

Posts: 20791
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Moving target: Check Big Apple Brews
That's a lot to process at once. muddy thread, so I'll stick sorta to the topic and leave the cars and my other pipe dreams to another time.


I don't want the chef with the best culinary background, or the writer with the best education or literary background. at least, not always. I want the best story, or the best dish, and both are subjective. a good analogy here might be the recent craze in beer of cloud fruit-forward IPAs. 'technical' brewers because the style is 'wrong' because it's not supposed to be cloudy, it's supposed to be more bitter, it's not supposed to have flour/oats/etc. Mostly, people are coming around because people love the beers. they're easy to love, easy to drink, and aren't complicated. Sure, it's not as sophisticated, but turns out sophistication isn't necessary what people are looking for.

Same for politicians, and perhaps for sports stars and other public figures too. we don't want stuffy suits that graduated the boy's club. or less of them anyway. Change and innovation didn't get us trump. the other 15 'serious' candidates being stodgy incompetent career politicians and the clickbait media coverage had a lot more to do with it than simply people wanting someone different.

I'm not saying no lawyers, no 'worked through the political ladder' type people, but what, 98% of Washington is that already? even if we flooded the ballots with different folk in 2018 and 2020 they'd still be the majority. And they can help out writing and executing solid legislation and spotting/fixing holes a rookie might make.

I wasn't really suggesting the 22 year old guy from his frat, but I think there are extreme diminishing returns on the value of experience and decision making as you get older. And no leader is an island, and if you appointed a, let's say 31 year old woman, head of a giant company, she'd have a ton of resources to suggest those historical examples that might help inform a decision. One person's personal experience is probably still a pretty small sample size and relying on that might actually be worse than not having it.

I don't know enough about Oprah to really say how intelligent or 'leaderish' she is, but she seems like she'd be an okay choice. I think I'd prefer someone younger, more towards 35 than 65, though.
"Look, would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?"

-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan

Re: Oprah?

Postby Mets Willets Point » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:48 pm

User avatar
Mets Willets Point
73) John Maine, SP, 2006-2010

Posts: 5611
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:53 pm
Nope-rah.
Mr. Met knows; he's seen some shit.

Re: Oprah?

Postby batmagadanleadoff » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:50 pm

User avatar
batmagadanleadoff
J.P. Ricciardi. Special Assistant to the GM

Posts: 15101
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:47 pm
Mets Willets Point wrote:Nope-rah.


Because she's gonna have to get in line. Doesn't Oprah know that the first cunt daughter already decided that she, Ivanka, is going to be the first female president?

Re: Oprah?

Postby 41Forever » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:52 pm

User avatar
41Forever
375) Scott Rice, RP, 2013-2014

Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:49 pm
Ceetar wrote:in a nutshell there is more than one way to skin a cat, especially a cat that is as problem ridden as the government. I'm on board with trying new approaches, and if that's hiring smart or compassion people or whatever, then fine.



I don't think it's as problem ridden as you imagine. There are pockets of problems, unquestionably. But a lot -- a lot -- of really good people who got into it for the right reasons and do make a difference before turning over the keys to the next guy.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Mets Willets Point » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:53 pm

User avatar
Mets Willets Point
73) John Maine, SP, 2006-2010

Posts: 5611
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:53 pm
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Mets Willets Point wrote:Nope-rah.


Because she's gonna have to get in line. Doesn't Oprah know that the first {misogynist term excised} daughter already decided that she, Ivanka, is going to be the first female president?


Nah, I just have this crazy idea - and hear me out here - that making an inspirational speech on an important issue does not make one a candidate for President.
Mr. Met knows; he's seen some shit.

Re: Oprah?

Postby 41Forever » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:58 pm

User avatar
41Forever
375) Scott Rice, RP, 2013-2014

Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:49 pm
we're still decade(s) away from autonomous vehicles being a viable thing.


That was a great post, but I disagree on this. The rate of change in this area is incredible. Will it be a decade before most people have one? Maybe. But they'll be on the road within five -- or less.

Next

Return to The Non-Baseball Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests