THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

It is unfortunate that this still needs to be the headline, or that the US is so far behind in caring more about someone’s ability than issues like race, sexuality, gender, etc…

I also believe the headlines are incorrect: Houston is not the largest administrative district to elect an openly-gay mayor.  Paris has had a gay mayor since 2001, and is slightly larger in terms of the boundaries of the city proper.

The coverage I’ve seen so far embodies 1) (the soft bigotry of) low expectations for people in Texas; 3) a need to claim that this is somehow an exceptional American achievement.  So I think two intrinsic pieces of the American psyche conspire to give you a headline that say “Openly-gay mayor elected in Houston” instead of “Houston city comptroller elected Mayor.”

If it’s a “first”, I don’t see any problem with the headline.  It’s called “reporting”.  But yeah, one day it will be a non-story.
vr, Xei

Hawerchuk,
Is the US really far behind anyone else in this regard? What evidence is there of that?

I agree that there is some bigotry on the part of the media in the fact that this has become such a big headline mainly because it happened in Texas.  Not that it’s not at least partially deserved though…

Is the US really far behind anyone else in this regard? What evidence is there of that?

Are you serious?  In Canada, gays can get married.  Sexual orientation has been read into the constitution as a prohibited ground of discrimination.  It’s also included in the various provincial human rights codes, which prevent private entities from discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation.  Gays can serve openly in the military.  As I understand the issue, there are questions in some US states as to whether even contracts between gay persons granting one another certain rights are enforceable, given the various amendments barring the state from recognizing any marriage like relationship.  The evidence is overwhelming that the US is far behind somewhere like Canada and I think we were probably behind a lot of Europe.

I’m a big fan of America - two of my siblings live there and my brother-in-law is American.  I probably have warmer feelings towards the United States and Americans than about 95% of Canadians.  With that said, it’s a bit of a weird place - for a country that cares about freedom as much as Americans purport to, freedom seems to be defined in an unnecessarily limited way - it basically just seems to mean that you’re allowed to carry guns and don’t want to pay taxes.  The police/security types are basically permitted to run wild - crossing the border is a complete joke, as is what’s going on in Maricopa County at the moment - and there’s an inordinate amount of concern about what others do in the privacy of their own homes.

America pretty much just sucks right now.  Obviously, not in terms of quality of life, but in pretty much everything else.

I meant more in terms of race than sexual orientation. Clearly, on race the US is ahead of European countries who have not integrated a large number of northern African immigrants
(and children thereof) anywhere nearly as well as the US has integrated Hispanics and African-Americans into the political system. It’s tough to compare the US to Canada on those grounds because there are fewer minorities in Canada.

On sexual orientation, I don’t consider the marriage issue important. Rather, it’s equality in treatment as far as rights of commercial transaction and recognition of civil unions. That is an issue in some states for sure.

If it is news that a black man gets as a college football head coach, then I don’t see why it shouldn’t be news when an openly gay mayor is elected in a southern city. 

Let’s face it.  The USA is not as “nice” to “others” as they think they are.

I don’t follow it too much, but how many Native Americans have been part of Congress?

Tango,
Here’s what Wikipedia has:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Native_American_politicians

That list excludes Native Hawaiians.

This remind me of an incident I had this morning.  I live in a very liberal city, probably one of the top-5 most liberal (they call themselves “progressives” here) in the US.  I don’t consider myself liberal (and I certainly do not identify with progressives).

Anyway, I was in a university-based museum this morning with my family.  I was carrying the infant in a “wrap,” basically a sling that you wrap around your body to carry the baby.  While my wife was in the bathroom changing the older kid’s diaper, a museum docent walked up to me and started cooing at the baby.  Then she said, “That’s a nice wrap, and it’s so nice to see dad wearing it.” If I were more self-conscious, I would have been tempted to take the (flowery, bright purple) wrap off in embarrassment.

I immediately thought of the Houston mayor story.  I assume the lady meant well, and I wasn’t offended (I am generally not offended my matters of race [I am not white] or gender), but it was still a really odd thing to say.  Would she tell a black kid at the museum “It’s so nice to see an African-American engaged in an educational activity?” I hope not!  But I felt that telling a dad (essentially) “It’s so nice to see you engaged in child-rearing” or (even more essentially) “It’s so nice to see [group] engaged in [things that group does not do according to stereotype].”

Anyway, I feel like there’s a large population of people (including, maybe the Houston mayor headline writer) that fall all over themselves trying to point out how far we’ve come and, in the process, (IMO) keep setting us back.

Writers who do their job well write articles and headlines that sell.  When there is an article or an headline that I think is a sad commentary, it is a reflection on society and not an indictment of the writer (or the newspaper/internet site).

Sometimes a writer or media outlet can be out of line or continually publish garbage, but even then to some extent they are still doing their job and I might not begrudge them that.

Phil: excellent link.

I don’t understand the need commenters on this site have to bash on America.  It’s very perplexing to me.

Bash on “America”, eh?  You expose a wart on an entity, and all of a sudden it’s a bash on the entire body and soul of that entity?  No one is bashing on America.  That’s a very simplistic 2-D view that fits your perspective of what is happening.

The only “bashing” that happens on this site in regards to the totality of an entity is the Gasbags on TV.  They deserve all the scorn they get because they propogate their own caricature, foregoing depth for inane loudness.

15: You protest too quickly.  I don’t mean to speak for 14, but he clearly said “commenters.” I don’t think the statement was directed toward you or MGL.  Rather, I believe he was referring to 6, which is a “bash” by any reasonable definition (and yes, such statements are perplexing to me as well).

I heavily agree with #14 and #16 and would’ve been the first to speak up, but I would likely be labelled as a “troll” by the mods.  I have a much stronger POV about these “non sports” threads, but will keep it at this for now. 
vr, Xei

i think the reaction by many commentors to the exposed warts can be disproportionate to their actual significance. and while i agree that theres a lot of things ‘canada does right’ that i wish america would do, its an unfair comparison.  canada is 33m people or thereabouts.  the US is 300m.  you cant can’t change federal policy in the US as easily as you can in canada, and in a lot of ways thats a good thing.  so yes, it would be nice if everyone in america could get married to whomever they please and everyone had basic health care coverage, but even so, its not that big of a deal. it doesnt mean ‘america’ sucks.  it means part of america suck and many americans suck.  just as im sure there are piles of canadians who are total jerks.  no big whoop.

anyway, remember how black soccer players in europe still get bananas thrown at them when they play and the spanish soccer team took a team photo giveing themselves ‘chinese eyes’ before going to bejing for the olympics?  those are pretty interesting topics too.

Rather than saying “commenters”, which means at least 2, and by the non-specificity really labels a majority of them, why not specically say who, and exactly what they said.

Summary opinions are the exact definition of b-llsh-t, as I always say.  There’s no reason to spread that on my blog is there?  Especially from the regulars.

Do you want to go to Cheers, and regret going there because there’s some b-llsh-tter there?  So, pay a similar respect here.

So, either call people out and provide evidence, or keep summary opinions (i.e., b-llsh-t) to yourself.

Portland also has an openly gay mayor, but I think it’s something like the 29th biggest city in the US, so of course not on the same scale as Houston, nor on the same cultural/political spectrum.

19: fair enough.  Allow me to say, “Comment 6 perplexes me.  It’s a summary opinion with no backing or anecdotal evidence, and ignores the large degree to which the United States really is a great country to live in.  I think Nick needs to expand on his point or refrain from making summary opinions.”

salb/21: perfectly said, and seconded.

[I’m not sure why people are so worked up over commenter #6’s drive-by shooting.  There are substantive issues raised in other comments, and I’d love to hear from those who might defend the US government and the electorate against such issues.]

Tyler handled this pretty well, but basically: there is no federal recognition of gay couples - be it marriage, civil unions, adoptions, visitation rights, joint tax returns, etc.  In other words, as far as the federal government of the United States is concerned, gay people do not have full rights of citizenship.  In cases where state law does permit such things, the federal government refuses to recognize these state laws. 

So, yes, the US is far behind the rest of the world and has been for quite a while.  The first time an openly-gay non-incumbent won a seat in the US Congress was 1999.  It happened years earlier in many countries - New Zealand had a *transgender* MP two years earlier.

Winnipeg (pop ~ 700,000) elected an openly-gay mayor in 1998.  Paris (pop ~ 2.3 million) elected an openly-gay mayor in 2001.  Berlin (pop ~ 3.4 million) elected an openly-gay mayor the same year.  The Houston headlines are wrong (clearly Berlin is larger) and ignore the rest of the world.

And I should have mentioned: the only known gay person ever elected to the US Senate, Larry Craig, denies that he’s gay.  The only current candidate for the senate who’s presumed to be gay, Charlie Crist, also appears to deny it.

I have to jump on the bandwagon; specifically, I need to oppose with something KenDynamo said. There is nothing insignificant about the United States’ discriminatory tendencies. In fact, there is nothing insignificant about any countries’ discriminatory tendencies. I come from Canada, where many of the commenters come from, and racism is rampant up here, but most Canadians seem to turn a blind eye by claiming that others should just “assimilate” and they are “colour blind”.
Only a straight, able bodied, probably white, probably male, middle to upper class person can look at another person’s problem and say that they blow it out of proportion.
You ooze privilege and you don’t even know it.

As for your bananas in europe comment, just follow this saying:
“let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”
Look after the ridiculous racism that is occuring in your country before comparing it to other’s. I know it’s totally hypocritical to use to quote on you, but whatever, i did it anyway.

just a canadian jerk’s opinion

19: fair point. apologies for spreading BS. i was erring on the side of not getting into a flame war type debate but in the future i will be more direct and choose my words more carefully in that regard.

25: i think you may have misinterpreted my intent, or i am misinterpreting yours.  i agree with tom that it shouldnt be news if a gay person gets elected mayor.  i also think people in all parts of the US should be able to marry whoever they want.  do i also think that people can make too big of a deal over the fact that there is no federal law recognizing same sex marriage in the US?  sometimes i do, depending on the exact issue and specific form in which the outrage is manifested.  as a middle class (though deep into debt from student loans right now if that matters) white male, am i entitled to have that opinion? thats where we disagree i suppose.  no hard feelings though.

and once again we have some miscommunication about my last graph.  i was pointing out that no ‘county’ is perfect.  i feel like you have taken it as evidence to the US being better than europe, or something like that. 

if you have something in specific you think im off base about i’d be interested in hearing it.  and i dont think youre a jerk either!

North America had its first gay mayor in 1998.  That would be Glen Murray in Winnipeg.

The Houston result is noteworthy, and one more sign that the intolerance towards gays is gradually easing.

I’m sorry for #6, that was obviously throwaway conjecture and wasn’t in the context of this thread.  I’ll stand by my comment, in light of the recent goings on around the Afgan war (I almost wrote WAR) and healthcare, but that’s neither here nor there. 

Apologies for anyone who was offended by my comment.

Tango/19

I don’t have a problem referencing specific comments when that is what I’m talking about.  Yes, comment 6 and 8 were the case in point but hardly the first time I’ve read something like that here. Your rush to jump on my original remark makes it seem like you hadn’t even read the comments or were unable to pick up on relatively blatant, non-specific America bashing.

Comment 1 contains it’s own cringe worthy bash “a need to claim that this is somehow an exceptional American achievement”.  If Houston is the largest city with a gay mayor in the US, it’s a factual headline not the news media collectively patting America/Houston on the back for their “accomplishment”.  Rather, that seems to be the perception by people looking to infer that the headline is anything more than what it is: a factually correct headline to an article.

I wrote WAR instead of war in a letter to the editor a few years ago, and it was published intact - maybe they assumed I was angry. 

Glen Murray just carpetbagged(probably not a word) himself from Winnipeg into my riding in Toronto, and is apparently going to run to fill George Smitherman’s seat.  Smitherman, who is also gay, quit the provincial legislature to run for mayor of Toronto next year.  It’s big news up here when our mayors are straight.

azruavatar@29:

You termed my comment about ‘American exceptionalism’ a “cringe worthy bash.”

Find me an article from a major US news source that mentions that Paris and Berlin 1) both elected gay mayors; 2) did it a long time ago; 3) are as big as or bigger than Houston.

The Reuters wire story says it, of course: “Abroad, Berlin and Paris are among cities with gay mayors.”

There are at least 20 developed countries that are ahead of the US in terms of gay rights and accomplishments by gay people.  But the coverage of the Houston election tells you nothing of the sort.  The reporting is intended to convey that this is a great American achievement, irrespective of how limited gay rights are in the US relative to the rest of the world.  That should make you cringe - not me pointing out that omission.

Hawerchuk/31

You’re the one who is reading it as American exceptionalism relative to the world rather than Houston “exceptionalism” relative to the rest of the US. It’s a news article about an American political election not the state of gay rights in America.

The AP story (name linked) quotes the candidate and stays very neutral on the subject besides listing the ACCURATE FACT that it does make Houston the largest city in the US with a gay mayor.  You are making a value judgment that I just don’t see in the article. I think that’s personal bias - and one shared by other people who comment here.

Your personal bias is that Americans do not view their achievements through the lens of American exceptionalism.  You are most certainly incorrect.

people are all worked up about HOUSTON electing a gay mayor because the media wants to perpetuate the stereotype of igggnerint bigot texans/southerners.

when the astros were in the WS 5 years ago (sobsobsob) i had some chats with guys who actually were shocked (as opposed to inspector renault shocked, SHOCKED) to find out that

1) there are serious baseball fans in texas (and that there have been for over a hundred years, dating back to rogers hornsby and the texas league)
2) some of us are Black
3) some of us are female
4) we do not ALL look, talk and think like ken lay/george w bush etc

Lisa - I think a lot of people were aware that the city proper of Houston is only about 1/3 white.  Some people were surprised that African-American and Latino Texans were willing to vote for an openly-gay person. 

It’s hard for an outsider to understand the difference between the City of Houston, Metro Houston and Texas.  Harris County voted 51-49 for Obama, which ran counter to the state as a whole, but that was because the City of Houston voted for him 61-39.  Harris County hadn’t voted for a Democrat since Johnson, and there are districts in the county crazy enough to elect Tom DeLay for 22 years.

And remember, 61-39 Obama is still not very liberal for a central urban area.  Manhattan voted 86-14 Obama; San Francisco voted 84-14 Obama; Philadelphia 83-16; Boston 77-21.  At the county level, LA County, which is massive, voted 69-29 Obama.  Wayne County (Detroit) was 74-25.  Cook (Chicago) 76-23.

So there is some justification for being surprised that Houston is as tolerant as it turned out to be.

hawerchuk

i think it would surprise you how many people have NOOOOOOOOO idea what the racial mix of the city of houston, let alone harris county is…

and i think that a LOT of republicans/moderates were EXTREMELY turned off by sarah palin and voted more against her than FOR obama, otherwise the vote would have been a LOT closer. if mccain had picked someone like romney/lieberman, obama wouldn’t have stood a chance.

and many AA and mexican americans were more turned off by the gay person’s opponent AND the on the record anti-gay statements of the right wingers.

like i keep telling people (and no one believes me) with one exception, every single person i know who is against gay MARRIAGE is not against gays. and most of those people i know are native texan african americans…

Lisa,

I don’t really pay any attention to Texas politics, and I’ve only spent four days in the state in my life. But during the last Houston mayoralty election, people made a big deal over the White-Sanchez-Turner dynamic and the city of Houston’s racial makeup was discussed in the press. That’s when I found out about it, solely by osmosis.  So the information is out there as much as it’s out there for any other city.

As for the gay marriage issue, Tom and MGL have had numerous long discussions about it.  I don’t believe anyone ever came up with a compelling argument against it, and nobody was able to explain how denying gay people their rights as citizens didn’t amount to being anti-gay.  You’re, of course, welcome to attempt to explain it from your perspective.

I think there were some very good arguments against “gay” marriage in the previous threads, perhaps just not ones that fit your philosophy.  I think the most ridiculous arguments were the “strawman” ones from the pro-gay marriage side.

Also, I believe that marriage is considered a “state’s” rights issue in the US.  Gays as are left handed people are fully protected from discrimination in the US Constitution.

There are states in the US that gays can get married in.

vr, Xei

Frank - thanks for reminding me that there’s a philosophy out there that supports evidence-based analysis in sports but not in any other area.

hawerchuk,

i don’t want to get in the middle of a poopoo storm, but i will tell you that with one exception, every perrson i know who is against gay marriage is against it because they believe that if it is legalized, then new laws will be made which will force churches against their religion and beliefs to perform gay ceremonies.

one of my gay friends, who is a law professor, has told me the exact same thing.

i only know one person who thinks that gay people are evil or something. no one else has any problem with someone else being gay…

and with that, i am out of the gay marriage discussion.

"Gays as are left handed people are fully protected from discrimination in the US Constitution.”

Clearly you have never read the U.S C. or you don’t understand how it works.

” that if it is legalized, then new laws will be made which will force churches against their religion and beliefs to perform gay ceremonies.

one of my gay friends, who is a law professor, has told me the exact same thing.”

Wow, that law professor friend of yours needs to go back to law school or at least re-read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

#41. Let me put it this way, the Fourteenth Amendment is open for interpretation.  Yes, you may know more about “law” than all of us, but it does not give your opinion or interpretation any more weight.  Same comment goes to you, but regarding the DOMA.
vr, Xei

35: I think you need to amend your last statement to say “tolerant of gays.” While you can make a case that democrats may be more gay-tolerant (and I think what you mean is more supportive of gay rights, not actually gay-tolerant), I wouldn’t make a blanket statement that democrat-leaning areas are generically more tolerant.

salb918: let’s look at some examples -

1. I looked at 14 state house and senate bills legalizing unions or marriage dating back to 1999, and 95% of Democrats voted for them, while just 12% of Republicans did.  In some cases - California and Wisconsin - not one Republican voted for gay rights measures.

2. ENDA, 2007

Democrats House: 200-25, with 6 Democrats voting Nay from the left because it excluded transgender people.  Of the remaining 19, 15 were part of the “Blue Dog Caucus”.
Republicans House: 35-159
Democrats Senate: 41-5
Republicans Senate: 8-45

3. I won’t argue that the Democrats were courageous on DOMA in 1996 (Paul Wellstone voted for it somehow), but a third of them voted against it, compared to just one Republican out of 277.

Areas that vote Democratic are absolutely more likely to support gay rights than areas that vote Republican.

Also, take a look at this chart:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/gay-marriage-state-by-state-tipping.html

Starting with states least likely to support gay marriage, there are 13 states that voted for McCain in 2008 before you get to a Democratic one (North Carolina).

Then starting at the top, there are 18 states that voted for Obama before you get to a McCain state (Arizona.)

The correlation between “vote Republican” and “oppose gay rights” is very high.

"i only know one person who thinks that gay people are evil or something. no one else has any problem with someone else being gay… “

“I don’t think you should be allowed to marry, or adopt kids, or be a teacher, or even hang out with my kids (in some cases), but don’t get me wrong.  I don’t hate gays.  I don’t think they are evil.  I love them. I love you. Hate the sin, love the sinner.”

Incredible B.S. What do you call that?  Bigotry in disguise, or just plain bigotry?

As Tango likes to say, and I apologize to him if I am bastardizing or misusing his “thing,” but you have NO shot at understanding what effect something has on a person or class of persons unless you walk in that person’s or class of person’s shoes.

IOW, non-gay or white people do NOT get to say what constitutes bigotry against black or gay people. That makes no sense to me.  Just like you don’t get to say what things that come out of your mouth offend your wife or not.  “Oh, honey, I didn’t mean it that way!”

The “slippery slope argument” is outrageously lame (although it does have its place in legal arguments).

“We can’t give equal rights to negros!  The next thing you know, women will want equal rights.  And then gays.  And then dogs will want the same rights as people. Where does it end?”

46: I conceded that democrat-voting areas are likely to be more supportive of gay rights, and you’ve made that case.  It follows intuitively that they are more tolerant of gays as well (which is good, obviously, and is a huge black mark on republican-voting areas).

But I do NOT think that (or that it follows that) democrat-voting areas are generically more tolerant, which is what you proposed.

Salb918@50:

“I do NOT think that democrat-voting areas are generically more tolerant, which is what you proposed.”

Show me where I wrote that.

Excerpting from myself here:

“Some people were surprised that African-American and Latino Texans were willing to vote for an openly-gay person...the City of Houston voted for [Obama] 61-39...61-39 Obama is still not very liberal for a central urban area...So there is some justification for being surprised that Houston is as tolerant as it turned out to be.”

To recap:

1) Supporting gay rights and voting Democratic are highly-correlated.
2) Houston did not vote as Democratic as the cities that staunchly support gay rights.
3) However, Houston still elected an openly-gay mayor.

So, as I said: “there is some justification for being surprised that Houston is as tolerant as it turned out to be.”

Nowhere did I ever write what you’re saying I did - I would never say that y=x and R^2=100% for any model.  I don’t even believe that there’s even such a thing as certainty in real-life; everything is probabilistic.

This seems like a silly digression, but what I object to is your statement in 35:

So there is some justification for being surprised that Houston is as tolerant as it turned out to be.

which was preceded by data about Houston and other city demographics. 

The implication (that I read) was that democrat-voting areas tend to be more tolerant, and that Houston is not as democrat-leaning, and so their tolerance is surprising.  I wouldn’t object to any of that if you had said “tolerant of gays.” Is that what you meant?

So, if I read/interpreted your statement incorrectly, I think we can move on.

I am just curious why it is being made such a big point that Republicans are less likely to support the legalization of Gay marriage more than Democrats.  I don’t think that is being disputed anywhere.  It’s information.  It’s a demographic.  So is the fact that African Americans were among the heaviest demographics to vote against the legalization of Gay marriage in California.  If the legalization of Gay marriage is a “civil rights” issue (not saying it is) and African Americans have obviously walk in those shoes every day, what does that say?
vr, Xei

In a thread about a gay mayor being elected where I also posted a survey about people’s attitudes to gay marriage, I was most certainly referring to “tolerance of gay people.”

54: we’re all set, then.  I bring it up because I see the leap from “[group] is more [desirable trait] in [specific instance]” to “therefore [group] is more [desirable trait] in general.” Liberal, conservative, black, white, I hear it all the time and it bothers me greatly.

You’ve clarified that it wasn’t your intent, so I can sleep again