6.17.20: The impact of COVID and the protests
Plus the Constitution, the Baseball Hall of Fame and the Designated Hitter
June 17, 2020.
Good Wednesday Morning. A thank you to the anonymous user who suggested yesterday’s first question, asking whether the coronavirus or the protests across the country would have a bigger lasting impact on society in 3 years. It’s a (perhaps intentionally!) tough question, and many of you shared the difficulty you had answering it, but it’s an interesting one as we all try to assess what the world will look like in the future.
We’ve got some more questions today, so click on the Let’s Talk button whenever you’re ready to get started.
Share.
Father’s Day is this weekend. What’s a better gift to give than the gift of being heard?
Subscribe.
If someone else invited you to this party and it’s your first time here, why don’t you add your name (or email address) to the guest list and we’ll make sure you get the invite every day.
Results from June 17, 2020
Question 1: Which do you believe will have a greater impact on society in the United States in 3 years?
I don’t think that the protests or the coronavirus having an impact is an either/or situation. These two events are inextricably linked, as part of the impetus for the protests is the ways in which coronavirus is exposing our racial disparities and failures of capitalism. They should both have a significant impact going forward and I hope they will.
I wish there were more options in responses for question 1. I believe BOTH the coronavirus and the protests will have an impact.
Concerned about the stimulus for unemployed people ending soon. Especially concerned about the effect of that on black and brown communities who have experienced higher unemployment.
Question 2: Which of the following best describes how recently you have read the US Constitution?
I’m pretty ashamed it’s been more than 3 years since I read the Constitution! But I did listen to a fantastic podcast about each of the Amendments made by Radiolab.
We’ll allow it.
Question 2 is a bit tricky in that I imagine very few people read the complete constitution from the preamble through article VII. It’s a bit like reading the Bible.
I had to memorize the preamble in 5th grade. We’d say it together as a class each morning, and I haven’t forgotten it since.
This comment also reminded me of an old Jim Gaffigan bit. “I don’t know much about the Bible myself. I haven’t read it, cause I don’t have to, cause I’m Catholic.” (I’m Catholic too.)
I’d be interested to know how many of the people that answered the constitution reading question with “in the last month” did so outside of their professional life. I am a lawyer, so I have read the constitution in the last month for work purposes. But I’ve also read it for personal (aka social discussion) purposes. I’m curious if those that have read it recently did so for work only?
Any passionate Constitutional hobbyists out there?
Some baseball questions
Which is less boring? Golf or Baseball?? Trick question, both equally boring :)
Question 3: Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?
Pete Rose question needed an “unsure” option
But were’s the fun in that?
Question 4: Should players who used steroids be in the Hall of Fame?
With the steroids question I put no...but if they are just put an asterisk by their name. I haven't been to the hall of fame since middle school and I think I remember that by wall of baseballs. Could be making it up though.
I’ve never been, so I can’t confirm.
Players who were HoF material before steroids like Bonds and ARod still deserve to be in the Hall. How you find out when they started juicing, well... leave that to the Sabremetrics folks
This question inspired one of our users to outline an entire plan, though:
HOF additions should recognize a player for performance in the sport but there should be a line somewhere for disqualifying conduct. Either way, if there is controversy, the induction should be accompanied by full and transparent accounting of the issues that surround their induction. Teach others that mistakes have consequences but perhaps there is a path to redemption. Other thoughts/options: MLB punishments could include (even if a lifetime ban from playing/attending events):
disqualification of consideration for a lengthy period -- like 50 yrs
a separate process for a qualified induction that is intended to recognize their contribution to the sport but also their impact on the sport in other ways (both negative and potential impact on reform) - could be a separate area or way to show the issue(i picture a dimly lit portrait-but anything like that maybe actually just extend the shame and punish family members-not sure but some interesting ideas could be put together)
A clearer appeal process with a timeline and process for reconsideration-perhaps including minimum number of fan petitions, ballot of current players/managers, owners, approval of commission.
Question 5: Where do you stand on the Designated Hitter?
Not a majority, but strong support for the DH.
Make it all the way through but forget to answer today’s questions?
Click on the Let’s Talk button below to get started.