The Tribune Company is Exiting Bankruptcy and Other Bullets

money flying bills airSorry to the Bears fans among you, who had to suffer through a nightmarish slide in the second half of the season, only to see the team win yesterday with a chance to still make the playoffs … and the Vikings and Packers conspired to doom that chance.

  • The Tribune Company is set to exit bankruptcy today, four years after initial entering bankruptcy (out of which the Cubs were sold). That may seem like it has no relevance to the Cubs, but it does in at least a couple ways: (1) TribCo still owns about 5% of the Cubs, and (2) TribCo owns WGN, and their ability work with contracts could change once they are out of bankruptcy (which is to say, they may have more freedom). Indeed, some analysts believe the Tribune Company will sell of many of its newspaper business in order to focus on television. What that will mean for Cubs broadcasts – recall, the Cubs’ agreement with WGN for about half of their games runs through 2014 – remains to be seen in the new year.
  • The Dominican Winter League is in the playoffs, and Junior Lake is still hitting well (3 for 7 in his last two games), and he’s played left field the last two games. He’s also been hitting third for Estrellas, which further indicates just how well he’s been playing down there. It would be nice to see him put up some huge numbers at Iowa to start out 2013, while playing defensively all over the field, and maybe give the Cubs some options in the second half.
  • Curtis Hubertz, who essentially invented the iconic scoreboard at Wrigley Field, passed away recently at 93. BCB has a nice write-up.
  • Over on the Message Board, BN’er Oswego Chris has the ten Cubs New Year’s resolutions.
  • The MLBullets at BCB look at some comments by Torii Hunter about being “uncomfortable” with having a gay teammate. Kind of sucks for any gay teammates he might have, who probably don’t need yet another reason to feel like they have to lie or hide.
  • Relatedly, that was my last MLBullets for BCB. It was an enjoyable experience, and we parted on amicable terms, as the expression goes – it was an end of the year kind of thing. The feature is going to live on over there, and I might in the future start covering a little more MLB-wide stuff here at BN (in a round-up form, not, like, in-depth (this is still a Cubs site)).
  • My Cubs-related resolution for 2013: I will not get irrationally hopeful in mid-April when the Cubs are “only” three games under .500. Anyone have any you’d like to share?

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

251 responses to “The Tribune Company is Exiting Bankruptcy and Other Bullets”

  1. King Jeff

    My guess is that Torii Hunter has had at least one gay teammate at some point in his playing career, he probably just wasn’t aware of it, and it seems for good reason.

  2. Myles

    Pretty glad the Cubs didn’t sign Torii Hunter. Also, I hope the Bears’ New Years resolution is to find a coach to knows how to field a proper offense.

    1. Jim

      I really don’t see the hate for Lovie Smith. I think he should stay and I think the Bears are close to putting it all together. This year we saw the emergence of Henry Melton and Tim Jennings. Brandon Marshall was a steal and played big for us. If I were the Bears, I would go big after Greg Jennings to add another playmaker to the offense. They also, for about the 6th year in a row, need to shore up that Offensive line!

      1. King Jeff

        They’ve been pretty close to putting it all together since his second season. His defense is old, his offense is inconsistent at best, his game management is terrible, he doesn’t seem to understand the “challenge” system yet, and he’s probably had the most chances at hiring new coordinators in NFL history. It’s gotten to the point where there is no one left to blame but Lovie, everyone else has been purged. 10-6 is a nice record, but this is two straight collapses after the team was in the drivers seat for the playoffs more than halfway into the season.

        1. ssckelley

          Lovies record would be outstanding if he did not have to play the Packers twice a year.

          Everyone knows Lovie is a defensive minded head coach but how many offensive coordinators will he have to go through before he can get it right? The Bears went out and got that top wide receiver that everyone said the Bears had to have but then you make Mike Tice your coordinator? The GM is doing his job, the coaching decisions are up to Lovie.

          1. Spriggs

            He shouldn’t have ever popped off about beating the Packers being his first goal after he was hired. Lovie and the Bears have pretty much been Green Bay’s punching bag the last several years. The Bears are a complete embarrassment to the city in my opinion because of Lovie Smith. I for one am ashamed to wear anything but a Payton jersey that is Bear related.

            PS… is he ever going to figure out what to do with Devon Hester?

            1. beerhelps

              Hester probably played his last game with the Bears yesterday

            2. Kyle

              Has to be cut. It was fun while it lasted, but he’s hardly the first return man to lose a step after a few years in the league, and without that step he’s worthless.

              1. Rcleven

                Lovie has been fired.

            3. frank

              Actually, he was 7-3 against green bay in his first 5 years. It fell apart after that. There are two more games against gb they should’ve won–in one game they rested many key players, and in another, Martz admitted to not game planning because they were already in the playoffs.

      2. ssckelley

        If I was the Bears GM my top priority would be to shore up that offensive line. The Bears have enough weapons on offense but they have their franchise quarterback running for his life almost every time he steps back to pass.

        1. King Jeff

          That should have been a priority as soon as they brought in Cutler. The team needs at least two offensive lineman, and needs depth/youth at every level of the defense. The window for this team isn’t going to be open for very long, and I don’t see Lovie being able to change his fortunes that quickly. Better to start moving on now.

        2. blublud

          So in one statement you say the GM is doing his job, but in the next statement you say the offensive line is lacking. Well, who job is it to draft and sign guys to play on the line. That would be the GM.

          1. King Jeff

            New GM had only last offseason, so far he’s done a pretty good job. Angelo failed over and over at receiver, safety, and offensive line, and Emery has solidified two of those problems already.

          2. Kyle

            It’s the NFL. You cannot have it all. Prioritizing one position will inevitably lead to shorting another.

            The Bears have drafted a lot of defense and signed Julius Peppers. They traded two first-rounders for a QB. They spent a couple picks on WRs last year. The offensive line has been last in line because something has to be last in line.

            1. ssckelley

              I disagree, the Bears have wasted a few high draft picks on offensive lineman. In fact the only 1st round pick remaining from the Angelo era is Gabe Carimi.

          3. ssckelley

            The GM before Emery was horrible. Going out and getting Cutler without a line to protect him is on Angelo not Emery. I will give Emery a pass but his number 1 priority this off season better be to fix that offensive line.

      3. JR

        Lovie had to go. But what about putting a ton of blame on Mike Tyce too. I don’t know how many times I have heard over the yrs what a great o-line coach Tyce is, but the Bears line has been historically bad for 5 yrs now. Sure, they don’t have a lot of talent, but do you really have to be that bad every year?

      4. DarthHater

        All this Lovie discussion has reminded me of one of my favorite Onion articles:,21267/

    2. blublud

      I’m not a Bears fan, I’m a TB Bucs fan. However, there is no way that Lovie Smith should be fired. He didn’t have a 2nd half collapse, he lost to teams that he should have lost to. the 7-1 start was a result of scheduling, not because the team was that good. 6 or the first 7 wins came against Carolina, Jacksonville, Tennessee, St. Louis, Dallas and Detroit, all non playoff teams. Dallas, who was decent this year, was the best team they beat, but the Cowboys were struggling at the time. They did beat Indy, but that was Andrew Lucks first career game, and they also struggled at the start of the season. His 2nd half loses were to San Fran, Houston, Seattle, Minnesota and Green Bay, all playoff teams. Their Schedule suggest in my opinion that they should have been anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7, so a 10-6 season from this Bears squad is an over achievement. Lovie Smith is a great coach.

      1. King Jeff

        They gave away games to the Vikings and Seahawks. I put both of those games on Lovie. They should be 12-4 right now, with a bye.

        1. blublud

          Well go ahead and fire him, I guarantee this time next week he’ll be the Head Coach in either Philly, NYJ, Cleveland, KC, Buffalo, Carolina, Arizona or even worse for you guys, Detroit if they let Schwartz go.

          1. King Jeff

            It’s not my choice, I just think we’ve seen the best of what Lovie Smith’s Bears can do, and it’s not good enough. 6 times missing the playoffs in nine years might be good enough for some franchises, but I don’t think it should be good enough for the Bears. Besides, his stated number one goal in coming to Chicago was to beat the Packers, and he’s failed miserably at it over and over.

            1. Rcleven

              Lovie will NOT loose his job for next season. There is 5M reasons why he won’t be replaced in 13.
              Let’s hope Lovie is absent in 2014.

              1. Featherstone

                Too late, Lovie is gone. Been reported

              2. Edwin

                I’ve never understood that expression. There’s not really $5M reasons, there’s just $1 reason 5M times.

                1. Spriggs

                  It’s cool ESPN speak. That’s all – I wouldn’t get too hung up about it.

          2. frank

            I’m not a “Fire Lovie now” guy–I think he’s been a bit hamstrung in terms of personnel, but part of that is his doing–he’s had a big say in the draft until now. But the coaching hires have been all on him, and the offensive side has been a nightmare; 7 offensive coordinators in 9 years is just not good. If one of those teams does hire him, they will soon be in the same position the Bears are in now. Very good-to-great defense, big problems on offense, good in the regular season–making the playoffs occasionally, and seldom winning a playoff game. That said, I don’t doubt they let him play out the contract before deciding, especially due to the injuries this year, and lack of overall team depth.

        2. blublud

          Also, there is no such thing as giving games away. The game is played for 60 minute. During that 60 minutes, things happen that will have an inpact on the final score. If teams A go up on team B 21-0 in the first half, we’ll there’s still a second half of the game. If team A can score 21 points in a half, then so can team B. So if team B comes back, team A didn’t give the game away, team B made adjustments and came back in the time that was allotted on the clock. usually, in a 60 minute game, the better team will prevail. Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda does not apply. Tampa Bay Coulda been 11-5 if they Woulda threw the ball down field more like they Shoulda, but the didn’t and they finished 7-9.

          1. frank

            True–but by the same token, there are certain things that you can expect a veteran, well-coached team to do, and certain things that a team like that will not do. A well-coached, veteran defense that is one of the best in the league is not expected to give up two, 80+ yard drives in the final minute of a game and in overtime . . .

            Breaking reports are that Lovie Smith has been fired.

      2. BD

        For me, it’s not just this year. They have made the playoffs once in the last 6 years. That is unacceptable.

        1. blublud

          Andy Reid, Romeo Crennel, Pat Shurmur and Norv Turner have all been officially fired. Every last one of those are probally hoping the Bears fire Lovie Smith.

          1. Pat

            I hope they get their wish. One playoff appearance in six years is not acceptable.

          2. Randy

            TO many people are blaming Lovie, the problem is they need a real OC and a lot of help on the OL. He is not the general manager and does not call the plays because he has no clue about offense. Last year Cutler got hurt and without him the offense fell apart. 10-6 is a good season and yes we could have been better, but did Lovie fumble the ball, throw the INT, miss the 50 tackles on Wilson in the Seattle game, or give up the late TD? You never hear about clubhouse trouble with the bears or players lashing out at each other. DO you really think that doesn’t happen? No, Lovie is good at keeping it in house. He is what a Head Coach should be, a leader. He doesn’t use the media to call people out or question players toughness or make excuses, he takes the blame.

            Hopefully they go out and spend huge on the offensive line (crossed fingers for Clady, Long, and Levitre). Re-sign Urlacher to a team friendly contract, release Hester(resign for a lot less and make him just a return man) and restructure a couple of deals to make some cap space (Peppers that means you buddy). Draft some young high upside defensive players to start looking for potential replacements for our aging defense and we will be solid.

            Look at all the players we develop on D, that is not by chance, it is coaching. Defense has never been a question since Lovie has been here, we just need to improve that offense.

            1. ssckelley

              Lovie may not have made the final decisions on player personnel but he did have complete control over his coaching staff. The offensive coordinator hires, play calling, and horrible game/clock management all fall on the Head Coach. If he was incapable of calling the plays or putting together an offense then he should have hired someone competent.

              1. Spriggs

                Really. Wasting timeouts because they cannot get a play in, week after week, year after year – under you name the offensive coordinator – is a clear indication of poor head coaching.

              2. baldtaxguy

                Agree. He is such a poor, poor decision maker. This has been evident as to how he has managed the offensive side of the football, from the coordinators he has chosen, on down. And his philosophy on using the coach’s challenge? Read some his quotes here.


                ‘‘Even if you lose a challenge, you look at the end of the game,’’ he said. ‘‘Did you need the timeout at the end of the game? If you didn’t, it’s no biggie if you miss it.”

                Umm…you manage the game and timeouts afterwards…? If its close, but critical, and even if he is not confident of the outcome, he will challenge and burn a timeout. “No biggie.” Then, in the 2010 Washington game, where an actual touchdown was ruled a fumble, a very suspect call, and at a critical time of the game, he did not challenge it, and the Bears lost. Because HE could not see it…?

                Unless you have watched very game and witnessed every one of his decisions, you have no idea how inept this man is in managing a game. That’s kind of responsibility #1 for his job description, isn’t it, “game management”? Under the category “Obtain Wins?” Sure, he sticks up for his players and he accepts the blame, but that is not a goal for a Bears fan.

                1. Spriggs

                  Well said. He was in over his head from the start. And usually too stubborn to change some things he could have changed (and should have). Game management was simply atrocious.

            2. King Jeff

              “the problem is they need a real OC and a lot of help on the OL.”

              How long do those problems need to go on before it’s the Head Coach’s fault? He’s had so many different offensive coordinators that I’ve lost count, and he’s brought in three or four different coaches who were going to “fix” the offensive line. Lovie got his choice on almost all of these hires, and that’s not mentioning when he chased Ron Rivera out of town and coached/wasted two prime years of that defense before turning it over to Marinelli. Jerry Angelo was a big part of the problem with the Bears, but I don’t think Lovie was/is the solution.

            3. Spriggs

              I know Lovie has a defensive background and all, but you cannot give him credit for the Bears defensive player development and defensive success, and then give him no blame for all the offensive woes of this team.

              1. King Jeff

                Lovie’s defense was better when he let Marinelli and Rivera coach it. When he took over, it was mediocre at best. Plus the whole thing with hiring his best friends as coaches over the best fit. I’m pretty sure Mike Martz was a Lovie decision, and I can’t think of anyone that thought that was a good idea.

                1. ssckelley

                  I agree!

                  Terry Shea, Ron Turner, Mike Martz, and Mike Tice all were hired by Lovie Smith and all of them failed. Lovie Smith has wasted probably one of the best defenses the Bears have had since the 80s because he failed to find someone to run a decent offense. I know some of the problems was the personnel decisions Angelo made but at some point you have to hold the Head Coach accountable.

                  Now the Bears have an aging defense and have only made the playoffs 3 times in the past 9 years. The offense is going to have to carry the team while the defense gets revamped and Lovie has proven he is incapable of doing this.

                  1. Mick

                    Who knows how much power Lovie actually had regarding personnel but his O-line was terrible for the last 2 years and the GMs did nothing about it. It was night and day in games where Cutler was pressured and not pressured.

                    In regards to the defense…there’s still a lot of really good pieces and now may be the time to switch to a 3-4 scheme. Briggs and Urlacher would make a killer MLB pair Shea McClellin could move back to OLB where he played at Boise St. If Bill Cowher gets hired, I’d like to see Kevin Greene as the D-Coordinator.

                    1. King Jeff

                      I like the 3-4 idea. What do you think, Peppers as the other OLB? I think Melton and Idonije can handle the end position, they just need a tank or two to anchor the line.

                    2. Andrew

                      They did try to address the O line, the problem is in the recognition of talent. They drafted two tackles in the first round in two years. Chris Williams was a total bust and while Carimi still has a chance to stick at RT jury is very much out on him. The O-line hasn’t been nearly as bad this year especially considering the injuries.

                      I don’t think we have the personnel for a 3-4 D right now and I think sticking with the 4-3 actually could work out better. With all the teams moving to 3-4s, finding a replacement Urlacher might be a lot easier, since coverage MLB are a lot less important in a 3-4. I think Emery drafted McClellin thinking he could stick as a 4-3 DE

                    3. Mick

                      As Peppers gets older, he’s bound to slow down (if it hasn’t happened already). I’d prefer to move him inside as a 3-4 DE, he’s definitley got the size to handle it. I like Melton or Idonije as the other DE with Wooten in the rotation on passing downs. We’d still need another pass rushing OLB but we could address that in the draft or FA.

  3. Rich

    forget about signing players, draft, trades, etc..
    as soon as we stop the horrible guest conducting, we can never win!

    JK…..Happy New Year…BLEACHER NATION!

    kidding about the never winning…hate the guest conducting..maybe once per week..

  4. Clark Addison

    What’s worse than the guest conducting is the inane interview of B list celebs in the bottom of the 7th. I want to watch the game, not hear about some third rate comic’s current gig.

  5. cubzforlife

    Starlin Castro told me in the lower leagues Junior Lake was always the better player between the two. Would it be nice for this kid to find his groove in 2013.

    1. Chris

      Lake has more, better physical tools than Castro. But he has no baseball instincts. He looks extremely raw when you watch him play, and often even lazy. Maybe it’s coaching, but unless he makes big changes, I’d expect that he gets traded more likely than plays at Wrigley.

      1. blublud

        So, if you see all these negative qualities in him from the distance you see him from, I would think every GM in the league sees it from a closer distance. If he’s not good enough to play in Wrigley, why would a GM from another team trade for him. Considering he belongs to the Cubs, I think his chances of playing in Wrigley are a lot higher then his chances of playing else where.

        1. Norm

          Because said GM doesn’t agree with those sentiments?

          1. hansman1982

            Or it’s the old adage of a “change in venue” working out for a guy. Plus a lot of GM’s will think they can fix what the Cubs have not been able to.

        2. frank

          Unless they think that their organization can bring something out in him that the Cubs’ organization cannot.

  6. Internet Random

    “The feature is going to live on over there, and I might in the future start covering a little more MLB-wide stuff here at BN (in a round-up form, not, like, in-depth (this is still a Cubs site)).”

    Yes, please. (And thanks.)

  7. Miggy80

    My Cubs related resolution is to make it to the BN meet and greet at AAA Iowa.

    1. Melrosepad

      If I have that day available I might just have to get me a BN shirt and make the 100 mile trip down.

  8. Internet Random

    Regarding Hubertz and the scoreboard, what the hell is an “eyelet”?

    1. hansman1982

      Definition #3 A peephole.

      Eyelet certainly fits. Aglet, Spriggs, is the thing that goes over the end of the shoelace to reinforce it.

      1. A tag or sheath, as of plastic, on the end of a lace, cord, or ribbon to facilitate its passing through eyelet holes.

      1. Internet Random

        “Definition #3 A peephole.”

        I wasn’t familiar with that use of “eyelet”. Thanks.

        Even so, they don’t really seem like peepholes. They seem more like shutters, if they work the way I think they do.

  9. BD

    REPORT: Bears fire Lovie Smith. (according to JD on twitter)

    1. ssckelley

      NFL com’s Ian Rapoport was the first to report it.

  10. cheryl

    Saw it on a couple of sources. He was one of the reasons I stopped following the Bears. Its going to take a while for them to climb back

    1. Blublud

      I really feel bad for Lovie, but at least he still gets paid. The bears will hire a new coach, and in 3 years they will still be in the same boat. Teams will learn from the teams like Pittsburgh, or even now Cinncinati who has stuck with Marvin Lewis, that you stick with your coach. Pittsburgh hasn’t fired a coach in 45 year and the results speak for themsleves. Chuck Noll and Bill Cohwer were allowed to leave on their terms and Mike Tomlin will be able to do tye same.

      1. frank

        I think Lovie is a decent coach, and keeping coaches around did work ifor Pittsburgh–but for who else? I think 9 years is plenty of time, given what we’ve seen. Lovie is simply not capable of hiring a good enough offensive coordinator. Cowher left on his own terms because he won a Super Bowl, and I believe he is the only coach who ever won a Super Bowl after 8 years with the same team. History is not on Lovie’s side here. I never want to see someone lose a job, having been in that situation myself–the assistants who don’t make the big money will be hurt worse than Lovie, but I think they’ll find jobs.

  11. justinjabs

    That Trib company stuff … something I would not have stumbled on if not for Bleacher Nation. Thanks.

  12. Josh

    Go Pack Go

    1. King Jeff

      Josh, with no pic and an inconspicuous name, you are from now my mortal enemy.

    2. Boogens

      Yes, go Pack. And take the Brewers with you.

  13. Fastball

    I can make some predictions on the NFC Central teams in the playoffs. Packers and Vikings beat each other up again next week. No matter who the winner is they don’t win the following week. An extremely physical outdoor game in the cold leaves both teams unable to to position themselves for their next opponent.

  14. someday...2015?

    The best part about the Lovie firing is Emery has already showed he’s not afraid to make a few big moves. I could see Emery being very aggressive in pursuit of coaches/players like Chip Kelly, Bill Cowher, maybe Kyle Shanahan(Redskins OC) Ryan Clady, or Jake Long. I don’t believe the McCaskey’s will just roll over and die for a few years to rebuild. They want to win as soon as possible and with a core of Cutler, Forte, Marshall, Jeffery, and Bennett(on offense) I really believe all it takes is a good offensive system that makes Jay and all the rest of the receivers comfortable… And it obviously wouldn’t hurt to add about 3 or 4 more lineman that can actually block instead of being a human turnstiles.

    1. OlderStyle

      Agreed. I think every GM wants to hire his “own” guy. Angelo did it, but I couldn’t stand that guy. Trying to replicate 90′s Buccaneers was a mistake.
      While the Monsters of Midway are known for smash-mouth defense, they need an offensive-minded coach or excellent OC to capitalize on what they already have in place. Just imagine the possibilities with a revamped o-line and an offensive game plan that taps into Cutler, Marshall and Forte’s potentials. It makes me nauseous to see what Rodgers/Packers developed. Cutler could be like that with the right coaching and system.

  15. Mick

    New Bears Head Coaches, in this order:

    1. Bill Cowher
    2. Andy Reid
    3. Mike McCoy
    4. Chip Kelly
    5. Jay Gruden

    1. Mick

      I’d actually move Jay Gruden ahead of Chip Kelly in fact I’d rather Kirk Ferentz before Chip Kelly. I wonder if now may be the best time for Ferentz to make the leap?

      1. ssckelley

        I am a Hawkeye fan and I can tell you first hand that hiring Ferentz would be like hiring Lovie Smith all over again. The Bears need to bring in a guy that can make the offense carry the team while the defense gets rebuilt. The Hawks needed this in 2012, they had a senior QB, WR, good offensive line, NFL caliber Tightend, and they finished 4-8.

        1. Mick

          Ferentz is a great coach but trying to recruit for Iowa is an up-hill battle. I don’t understand what you mean by hiring Ferentz would be like hiring Lovie Smith all over again. If the Bears even had even a decent O-line they would have made the playoffs. Also, they could have used a tight end. Like any tight end. Lovie could be the start of some wholesale changes. We shall see which dominoes fall next.

          1. nkniacc13

            of the reasons he says Ferntz is like Lovie is that he basically has his OC not lose the game and has his defense win it

          2. ssckelley

            Good defense and conservative offense is the coaching style of both Lovie Smith and Ferentz. Lovie struggled against Green Bay, Ferentz struggles against Iowa State (rivalry game). Neither have a clue on how to run an offense, manage a game or play clock, and neither are shown they are capable of hiring an offensive coordinator (see Greg Davis). Even the way Ferentz handles the media is almost identical to Lovie Smith.

    2. Andrew

      Where’s Dick Jauron?

  16. Deez

    No coach “deserves” to get fired BUT…
    You can’t fire 53 players!
    Lovie’s had 2 problems
    1. Inconsistency in the offense
    2. Couldn’t beat the Pack.
    How are you going to replace a 10-6 coach w/ a 8 season career record of 81-63!? Bears have never been offensive minded when hiring a Head Coach. I wonder who they will go out & get?

  17. ron

    way to go brett, i happen to believe the gay lifestyle is a sin. what, no tolerence for my view????. lets keep to cubs, not social issues.

    1. Andrew

      your view is one of intolerance for other people, hence people need not tolerate it.

      1. EQ76

        believing something is wrong doesn’t always mean there’s intolerance.. a person could believe smoking is wrong but doesn’t hate people who smoke.. people get way too sensitive about this topic. It is possible for a person to disagree with a lifestyle and not be a hater, phobic or intolerant.

        1. Andrew

          Believing smoking is wrong is entirely different than believing being gay is wrong. People can stop smoking, people cannot stop being gay. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, it is part of who a person is that. It is just as bad as racism and sexism, because it is negatively judging someone based on something they:

          A. is not a negative part of them and
          B. is something that a person has no control over

          1. hansman1982

            “Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, it is part of who a person is that.”

            Having “relations” with someone of the same sex is the sin part, not whatever triggers their attraction to members of the same sex. It is entirely possible to think that the action is a sin, yet tolerate the individual.

          2. Randy

            It is a lifestyle choice. If it isn’t a lifestyle choice then the argument can be said that Hunter has no control over how he feels about Gay people. No one told them they have to be Gay, they decide for themselves. It is just as much as do you prefer blondes or red heads. Telling someone they can’t feel uncomfortable around Gay people is wrong. Hunter can’t feel that way, but it is ok for Gay people to hate him because he is uncomfortable around Gay people? That is the problem with this world, you are wrong if you have an opinion. Gay people want others to accept them for being Gay, but they can’t accept that there are people who don’t like Gay people. (And I have done a lot of study on psychology as per my job and their is nothing in the brain that triggers a person to be gay, it is a choice)

            1. Internet Random

              “And I have done a lot of study on psychology as per my job and their is nothing in the brain that triggers a person to be gay, it is a choice[.]”

              Since you’ve done the research, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed literature that you’re alluding to.

              Also, I didn’t realize that science thought they had every last secret of the brain figured out. Please provide some citations to support this as well.

              1. Randy

                Sorry, but I have better things to do then search through all my books and find the reference you want. Of course if you want you could use your argument about the brain not being 100% figured out and apply it to everything we choose to do in life. Maybe it is something in Hunter’s brain that says he is uncomfortable around Gay people, so if that’s they case, GET OFF HIS BACK!!

                1. Internet Random

                  “Sorry, but I have better things to do then search through all my books and find the reference you want.”


                  “Of course if you want you could use your argument about the brain not being 100% figured out and apply it to everything we choose to do in life.”

                  No, you can’t.

                  1. hansman1982

                    True story:

                    Deja Vu and seizures are one in the same. Just seizures are out of control.

                    Remove a part of your brain and you will stop having both.

                    At least this is what PBS told me.

                    1. Internet Random

                      Hmm. I wonder if anti-seizure meds like Dilantin prevent deja vu.

            2. Andrew

              I don’t know what your job is that requires you study these things but there is a lot of consensus that being gay is not a choice and that it is determined very early on in the development of the brain and nervous system.

              “It is just as much as do you prefer blondes or red heads.”

              So you can just choose your preference? No you can’t, you either prefer one or the other and neither is incorrect or wrong for any reason. Regardless, is it okay for me to feel uncomfortable and treat people that prefer one or the other differently?

              1. hansman1982

                “Regardless, is it okay for me to feel uncomfortable and treat people that prefer one or the other differently?”

                Ahh, there is a twisting of the initial discussion. Hunter merely stated how he felt about it. As far as we know, he hasn’t done anything further. He has feelings about it but hasn’t really had any negative actions that would warrant a “re-education” of his personal beliefs.

                1. Andrew

                  Yes he has negative feelings towards gay people. People should let him know that these negative feelings are wrong and he has no reason to feel uncomfortable. If we say its okay for him to be uncomfortable towards gay people, we’re saying it’s okay for everyone to be uncomfortable towards gay people. Then when it comes to hiring decisions, if all of the majority of people feel more comfortable with hiring straight people, gay people are then left out of job opportunities that they were qualified for. I’m not calling for Torii Hunter’s head or saying he should be punished because he didn’t do anything wrong he just stated his opinion, however people that have access to him should let him know why his views are ignorant and should be changed.

                  1. King Jeff

                    Really Andrew? Are you trying to say that no one is allowed to feel uncomfortable around gay people? That’s an absolutely ridiculous stance for someone to take who’s trying to preach tolerance.

                    1. Randy

                      100% Agree Jeff

                    2. Andrew

                      I gave a very good reason why people should not be uncomfortable around gay people for the same reason people should not feel uncomfortable around black people or white people or Asian people. I’m not preaching tolerance for all opinions, just all people. I don’t tolerate making judgments about people over the color of their skin or their sexual orientation.

                    3. hansman1982

                      If he were to feel uncomfortable having a woman in the lockerroom with him would there be this much discussion?

                    4. Internet Random

                      Depends on the context.

                    5. King Jeff

                      My college roommate is gay and has his boyfriend over all the time. We hang out, play video games, drink beer, watch sports, study together, etc. I am not the least bit uncomfortable around them, even when they are publicly affectionate. They have two friends that we hang out with sometimes, and I am very uncomfortable around them. The two sets of guys act differently, have different interests, and my rommate’s friends are very forward about their sexuality sometimes. It makes me uncomfortable when they bring it up in conversation. Does that make me ingorant? Am I intolerable? Am I making judgements on these people? Should my views be changed? My roommate thinks I’m a good friend, and commends me for the way I interact with his other friends, so Andrew, tell me how I should change. Tell me what my feelings and opinions are going to be, because that’s what you are doing with Torii Hunter, except you are doing it without knowing any context of his experiences.

                    6. Internet Random

                      Public displays of passion are in poor taste no matter who’s doing it. If that’s what’s going on, your roommate’s friends need to “get a room” (remember that?).

                      If it’s just handholding or peck kisses, you need to get over that.

                    7. Andrew

                      No you are not ignorant because you’re not uncomfortable with them because they are gay, but rather the way they act or the things they said. It would make most people, including myself, uncomfortable if anyone chose to talk about their sex life in regardless of their sexual orientation. That is an intimate subject and should be kept out of the public in my opinion. The fact that you are comfortable with your gay roommate tells me that you are not uncomfortable with gay people, but rather are uncomfortable when people divulge more about their sex life than you want to hear, that’s normal. This isn’t intolerant of people, but rather it is intolerant of the way they behave. The difference is that they can control their behavior around you, but they can’t control who they are attracted to i.e. eachother.

                      If I were gay, and my boss has a problem with me keeping a picture of my partner on my desk but was okay with straight married people to have their wives/husbands pictures that would be wrong. If she were okay with the picture but not okay with me telling her what we did last night. that would be appropriate because she probably isn’t okay with anyone talking about that in the workplace.

              2. Randy

                I would say that the “consensus” you are speaking of does not study how the brain works and is more made up of the general public. While being unable to tell you what my job actually is, it involves a lot of criminal/terrorist studies as to why they do what they do. I could do a lot of comparing of the 2, but many people will just argue to the case that they are no where similar. And yes you can choose a preference, I make like blondes better, but maybe there is a blonde that looks better as a red head. It is not so cut and dry as you would like to point out.

            3. Andrew

              I could be wrong but I doubt you’re gay. If being gay is a choice, then go be gay. Go to a male strip club and be attracted to the men you see by choice.

            4. Cubsleeram

              I’m a psychology major that has written many papers on the subject, and I can surely tell you that there are physiological differences within the brain between homosexual and heterosexual individuals (e.g. Homosexual individuals tend to have a larger Lateral Geniculate Nucleus (LGN)). Please do some more research before you voice an opinion on such a sensitive matter. The last thing this world needs is more opinions grounded in pure ignorance. Thank you.

              1. Randy

                For every paper someone writes, there are a hundred proving them wrong. That is the great thing about science, everyone twists and turns it and only point out the things that support their arguments.

                1. Andrew

                  I would consider your opinion completely correct if you were able to honestly decide that you are completely sexually attracted to men and not women. Go become attracted to men and be unattracted to women, and I’ll believe it is completely a choicce

                  1. Randy

                    That makes no sense, since it means so much to you, why don’t you go try it.

                    1. Andrew

                      I don’t believe it’s possible. I am straight. I cannot choose to be gay.

                      You believe you can choose to be gay. If you believe that, why does it not make any sense for you to go be attracted to men?

                    2. Randy

                      If I choose to not be Gay, then it makes no sense to go choose to be Gay just to prove a point. I choose not to smoke pot, should I go smoke just to prove that it is a choice?

                    3. Andrew

                      Smoking pot is very different because it is clearly a choice because people both do it and not do it all the time and choosing to do it could have obvious negative impacts legally or healthwise.

                      Now if you told me that you choose to not jump five feet in the air, but could if you wanted to, it’s reasonable for me to ask you to prove it because that is not something you could choose to do in my opinion

                    4. Randy

                      “clearly a choice because people both do it and not do it all the time”

                      There are plenty of Gay people and Straight people as well. There are also people who start off Straight and become Gay over time. There are people who do both. Clearly seems like people making choices to me.

                      There are also negative health risks with being Gay, but lets avoid the details of those since this is a family site.

                    5. Andrew

                      Anyone that “becomes” gay will not say they used to be straight, but rather used to pretend to be straight or were confused and the same thing for people that “become” straight. Neither wakes up in the morning and decides who they are attracted to, but you can wake up and decide to smoke pot.

                      There also aren’t any negative health risks to gay relations that are not just as applicable to heterosexual. A monogamous gay relationship is just as healthy as a monogamous straight relationship.

                    6. Randy

                      Some people also claim they were insane when they did certain things or not in the right mind set, guess we should just believe what everyone says as fact and blame it on chemical imbalance of the brain.

                      And yes there are some negative health risks, not with their relationship, but with certain actions, particularly males.

                    7. Internet Random

                      “[G]uess we should just believe what everyone says as fact.”

                      Ahh. So this explains why you feel comfortable making sweeping, conclusory statements without providing a single citation… even when asked to do so.

                    8. Randy

                      That is the great thing about having choices, it is your choice to believe what you want, just like being Gay is a choice.

                    9. Internet Random

                      It is great. You can b

                    10. Internet Random

                      … Believe that the sky is green, and no one can stop you.

                2. frank

                  But much depends on the research methodology and it’s validity as well as the presumptions of the researchers going in. In fact, most recent research shows that homosexuality is in the DNA and is simply not a choice.

          3. Edwin

            Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. Wouldn’t that constitue as a “negative thing”?

            1. Andrew

              Christians that believe homosexuality is a sin are wrong. There is nothing about being gay that is harmful to oneself or to others or to God if you believe in God, therefore there is nothing negative about being gay.

              1. hansman1982

                The belief is that God has decreed that “laying with another man” is wrong. Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind.

              2. mudge

                People seem to be missing the point here. It’s one thing for a player to feel uncomfortable with a gay teammate, realizing it’s their problem and not the teammates’, and quite another to announce in a press interview that one “wouldn’t feel comfortable.” I’ve lost respect for Torii Hunter on this one. It’s not really about his feelings – it’s about other peoples’ feelings when you trot out such things in an interview. Would he feel “uncomfortable” with a woman on his team?

        2. DocPeterWimsey

          Moreover, people don’t believe smoking is wrong: they think that smoking is bad for people. The thought is based on data showing correlations between exposure to tabacco smoke and numerous ailments.

          Belief and thought are two fundamentally different things: indeed, they are fundamentally antithetical. It’s not even just that thoughts are based on evidence and rationalism whereas beliefs are held in the absence of and even contradiction of evidence: we do not even use the same parts of your brain for these two things!

          What Hunter is expressing is based on belief, just like all other bigotry. It should be condemned as such.

  18. Fastball

    I agree with Josh. We all have the right to opinion and what we shall accept socially based on our religion or morals. A baseball blog isn’t the place for this sort of topic. Tori Hunter has every right to speak his opinion when asked a pointed question. I don’t think acceptance for this sort of thing is going to be common place in my lifetime. Just my opinion. I’m not a bigget or anything remotely close.

    1. Andrew

      I understand Hunter is uncomfortable with gay people, but that doesn’t make that acceptable. I don’t care if it is baseball, fans should let Hunter know in a polite way that his views are wrong and hurtful for gay people

      1. hansman1982

        is he saying that he will bash that gay teammates head in with his bat?

        So if he were uncomfortable with having a woman in the locker room he would hate all women?

        Flaming everyone who isnt on-board with gay people is just as intolerant as people who are hateful towards gays.

        EQ’s point above is a great example, just because you don’t like what someone does and are uncomfortable around them doesn’t mean you are a bigot. If he were demanding a trade because of (expletive deleted) is on the team, that’d be a different story.

        1. Andrew

          Being uncomfortable with a gay man in the same locker room as you is ignorant. It comes with the presupposition that gay men are going to ogle straight men which isn’t true. This discomfort he has should change and it can. I bet if he had more friends or family who were gay, he wouldn’t feel uncomfortable because he would understand that they are just like anyone else in that locker room, except that they spend their evenings differently.

          It is not intolerant to call people out for being intolerant. Were abolitionists intolerant of slaveowners?

          EQs example is completely dumb. Smokers are doing harm to themselves and the people around them when they smoke. Gay people are not causing any harm to themselves or others. Smokers can also control their behavior, whereas gay people cannot control what their sexual orientation is.

          1. EQ76

            I appreciate your tolerance for my example. Calling it dumb was very tolerant of you. Listen, this topic is impossible for people to debate. No matter what some people put down, people hear what they want to. Andrew & doc, I wasn’t using the smoking analogy to give an apples to apples comparison, obviously they are both extremely different things. As usual on here people completely fail to see the main point due to them hearing what they wanted to in what they read.

            My point was simple and not fueled by hate or phobia. My point was that a person can completely disagree with a person’s lifestyle, choices, whatever and not hate that person. Lumping everyone who doesn’t agree with you as all being hateful and intolerant is also ignorant. People can disagree on things. It’s ok.

            1. Andrew

              I don’t need to tolerate your example, it was incorrect and not intelligent. I need to tolerate people as everyone should. I didn’t call you dumb, I pointed out that your example was dumb and your opinion is wrong.

              Gay people do not choose to be gay, it is a part of who they are and for that reason alone you cannot tolerate them without tolerating their gayness. Unlike smoking, being gay is not a choice, refer to the above posts. I don’t wake up and decide to be attracted to women in the morning just like gay men don’t decide to be attracted to men in the morning. I among others have been arguing this point on another part of these comments so read that if you want to disagree with me.

              1. Cizzle

                The fault in your example is that sexuality (like smoking, drugs, or just about anything else) is a PREFERENCE. Preferences change. There are countless examples of people who go from preferring men to preferring women, back to preferring men (and vice-versa). So while you may not wake up and “change” your sexuality, it can in fact change, just like your preference for or against cigarettes.
                The fact that this preference defines people (and divides people) is the sad part. It really shouldn’t be anyone’s business.

                1. Andrew

                  Even if your sexual preferences can change, which maybe they do, I doubt it but I could be wrong, does not make it a choice. Whatever your preference is is an integral part of who you are though, and therefore if you think my preference is an abomination, I am an abomination in your eyes as well because I can’t control my preferences.

                  1. Cizzle

                    I think you missed the point of my last paragraph.

                    1. EQ76

                      I think he missed the point of mine too. And a typical response to not understanding a point and having a logical talk about it is to call thinks stupid and dumb. Apparently this is Andrew’s method. Andrew if you’d read my posts you won’t find me attacking gays or hating on anyone. I simple wanted to make a point on the perception about tolerance. Apparently you can’t see past your own frustrations and anger on this topic to understand where I was coming from.

                    2. Andrew

                      I have been having a logical talk as I have given clear reasons why the example you made was a dumb thing to bring up with regards to hating the “gay lifestyle.”

                      The point I am making that you don’t seem to understand is that there is no value to tolerating an idea or opinion that is a bad one. I have been consistent with this throughout my posts if you read them.

                      I know exactly what you are saying. You were trying to say that I should be tolerant of people that think the gay lifestyle is a sin. I gave clear logical reasons why it is right that we should not tolerate people seeing being gay as a sin. Yes I call some of the things you say stupid but I also give good reasons for doing so.

            2. OlderStyle

              I agree with you. The culture of PC strives to stamp out disagreement by labeling dissent- hate or intolerance or ignorance. I come across it on a college campus all the time.

              1. hansman1982

                It is similar to how we debate the Cubs.

                There are segments of posters here who are up for having an open and honest debate without labelling someone as a kool-aid-drinker, hater, sheep, etc…

                There are others who can only debate by using those phrases. Just because I disagree does not make me a bigot or intolerant or a sheep or a hater. How I carry myself through the discussion is what makes me that way.

                1. OlderStyle

                  Yes, can we not disagree while maintaining dignity and respect?
                  But, Mr. hansman, your meltdown on Kyle a while back was not pretty, to say the least.

                  1. hansman1982

                    Jesus h Christ. 1 meltdown and you’re crucified forever

                2. Andrew

                  Not sure who you’re trying to address but I haven’t called anyone a bigot or intolerant. I have said the opinions that people hold are wrong and should be changed because they lead to intolerance but not that anyone is a bigot

                  1. Internet Random

                    Ha. Speaking of seeing what you did there.

                    1. Internet Random

                      Hmm. This was supposed to be a reply to hansman’s meltdown comment… effin’ iOS.

          2. Cizzle

            @Andrew I’m about as open minded as you can get about other people’s sexuality, however, I don’t understand how feeling uncomfortable about something makes you ignorant. You seem to be caught in the same logic-loop as the other side, i.e. because you feel a certain way, it’s unacceptable for someone else to feel differently. Would it be “ignorant” for a woman to feel uncomfortable sharing a locker room with a gay man…seeing as he has no reason to “ogle” her?
            People have the right to do or feel whatever they believe is right for them. As long as those feelings or actions don’t infringe on another person’s ability to do the same, it’s none of our business.
            So if a guy is attracted to other men, so be it – let him do what makes him happy. Likewise, if those decisions make someone else feel uncomfortable, let them be uncomfortable. And lastly don’t say that feeling uncomfortable about another person’s choices allows you to restrict their choices. Don’t make one person/group change their lives so they are comfortable with another person/group’s decisions…that’s just asinine.

            1. Andrew

              As I stated on another thread, people should not feel uncomfortable around people that are gay or of another race. If they are, they should be told that that is an ignorant feeling and should be rethought. If I am uncomfortable with gay people, I’m likely to give preference to straight people with regards to things like hiring people or promoting people or admiting them into schools or leasing my apartment to them. This makes things more unfair to gay people for reasons that they have no control over. Therefore, I should stop feeling so uncomfortable with them.

              We have to be tolerant of all people, however there is no need to be tolerant of peoples opinions or beliefs when they have negative implications to other people.

              1. Randy

                So people who take showers around other men or change clothes around them should not feel uncomfortable around Gay people?
                In the military there are different bathrooms, berthing, and showers for women because of sexual orientation. However, Gay people stay in the same berthing as their respective sex even though their sexual orientation is the same. Based on your belief woman and men should just get over being uncomfortable and share facilities because it is ignorant to feel that way.

              2. Cizzle

                “there is no need to be tolerant of peoples opinions or beliefs when they have negative implications to other people”

                Your hypocrisy is just sad…you’ve essentially paved the way for complete and utter intolerance for all. All you have to do to justify it is say that their beliefs have “negative implications to other people” and you can be as intolerant as you’d like? One can easily do this in morality, politics, religion, or just the way that anyone lives their life. Isn’t tolerance the belief that you should allow someone else to think and do what they believe is best…regardless of the negative implications???
                Anyway, you’re co-mingling thought & deed, which are COMPLETELY different and also (un)-successfully dodged every point I made in my post above.

                1. Andrew

                  “Isn’t tolerance the belief that you should allow someone else to think and do what they believe is best…regardless of the negative implications???”

                  Ya sure I don’t care if you think Hitler had some great ideas. I don’t care if you burn crosses on black people’s lawns on the weekends. I’m tolerant of all of that regardless of what it means.

                  Why should I be tolerant of those things? Why shouldn’t I try to change your mind when clearly what you believe is harmful to other people?

                  I’m tolerant of people that choose to celebrate Hannukah or Kwanzaa instead of Christmas. There is nothing harmful about that even though you do something differently than I do.

                  “All you have to do to justify it is say that their beliefs have “negative implications to other people” and you can be as intolerant as you’d like?”

                  There is no harm to being intolerant to beliefs. If someone has wrong beliefs that are harmful such as being a white supremacist, they should change them and everyone would be better off. I care about people thriving, I could care less about their backwards ideas that hurt others. People can change their minds. many former slaveowners became abolitionists because they realized that what they had believed was completely stupid and shouldn’t be tolerated. The world is better because people were not tolerant of people believing they had the right to own slaves.

                  1. Cizzle

                    Geez, Hitler?? Why’d you have to go there?
                    I understand that you think what you believe is right, and what others believe is wrong…and therefore it’s your obligation to change their beliefs. I understand that line of thinking, for the most part, we all have that. But, what you can’t seem to delineate is the difference between thought and deed. Just because someone has a certain bias doesn’t mean that it affects all their decisions. Just because we have a bias doesn’t mean we can’t see past it.
                    Don’t you see that you are being intolerant as well? Saying that someone else has to adapt their line of thinking (or you need to change it for them) to become more in line to what you believe, is intolerance. Wanting to get rid of all differing opinions and beliefs because they “could” cause harm is very dangerous…but it’s the way that most governments gain power. I for one am glad that we have a diverse population, even if it causes strife at time.

              3. legen wait for it dary

                I can tolerate gay people i dont i agree with it but it doesn’t mean they r bad people. My favorite show is white collar and the star is gay.

      2. Kyle

        Feelings are never unacceptable. Actions can be.

        1. Andrew

          Perhaps unacceptable is the wrong word. His feelings are however ignorant and should be adjusted, because they can lead to unacceptable actions.

          1. hansman1982

            That is the thin line we must tip-toe as a society.

            Should we always demand that the minority feels and acts the same way as the majority or should we be tolerant of a minorty regardless of how “icky” it may make us feel?

            Here we have two minorities on opposite ends of the spectrum and we have people demanding that they both act like the majority. His statement has no different impact than his teammates sexual orientation. Both of them make a segment of the population feel uncomfortable but in the end neither has an impact beyond that.

            Again, if he were to be making threats or demanding a trade because of that player, we would be having a different discussion.

      3. Pat

        So wait. He has a choice whether or not he feels comfortable? That’s asinine.

        1. Andrew

          Yes you can teach yourself to be more comfortable. He can get to know people that are gay and become more comfortable around gay people. Discomfort with other people comes from ignorance. If he learns that gay people are just like other people, he can become more comfortable. Gay men can’t learn to love women and shouldn’t have to because they aren’t harming anyone or doing anything wrong.

          1. Kyle

            1) We’re all idiots for having this conversation here and we should feel bad.

            2) I don’t care what issue we’re talking about, I’m never going to agree that beliefs can be wrong. No belief ever hurt a person of any categorization. Actions hurt people. Beliefs do not.

            1. Pat

              I don’t feel bad at all. The reason we have so many divisive issues in this country is that we are constantly made to feel they should never be discussed. That way there can be no progress, and all politicos love them some divisive issues.

            2. Andrew

              So the belief that white people are inherently better than black people isn’t wrong? There is no way having that belief can hurt people? So when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he was fine because those were just beliefs but when he started exterminating people, thats when he was bad. People wouldn’t act in ways that hurt people systematically if there weren’t terrible underpinning beliefs under it.

              1. MichiganGoat

                Exactly beliefs based on ignorance and hate regardless of what religion teaches you is WRONG.

              2. Pat

                You can believe something that is wrong. It is not wrong to have a belief.

                And yes, a belief, owing to it having no corporal form, is incapable of harming someone.

              3. Kyle

                It’s not wrong to hold those beliefs in the moral sense. In the factual sense, sure.

                But as long as you don’t act on them, nope, not morally wrong.

                1. Kyle

                  Didn’t we all learn this from Dan Ryell?

                2. Andrew

                  Since we live in a real world, you would have to agree that holding those beliefs is wrong though right?

                  1. Kyle

                    Nope. I’m not in the business of telling people other than my son what they can and can’t think or feel in their own minds. If nothing else in this world belongs exclusively to us, our minds do.

                    1. Andrew

                      Do our minds belong to us though? We are influenced by all kinds of things. If we were taught terrible things that made us believe a certain way then why not allow good influences to shape our minds in a better way?

                    2. Internet Random

                      Beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum. They have consequences.

                      I doubt that you’d be so stoical if a jury of your peers held a false belief that you murdered your neighbor… or if a homicidal maniac thought your son keyed his Camaro.

                      Furthermore and quite relatedly, there is a very, very real moral argument to be made in whether it’s right to allow people to hold false beliefs… like whether it’s okay for me to let a jury think you’re guilty of murdering your neighbor when you’re not.

                      It certainly can be immoral to maintain a false belief that may lead to the harm of others when you do so because you ignore the evidence that proves your belief false. Example: a drug company that refuses to review evidence that the pills it is marketing are causing birth defects.

                      Now, if you want to draw a (meaningless) distinction between believing something and acting on that belief, then know that ignoring facts is an action.

                    3. Pat

                      Oh goodie, re-education camps. How unexpectedly socialist of you.

                    4. Kyle

                      Neither the jury nor the maniac are a problem until they act on the belief. Nor is the drug a problem until they market it.

                      You can call the distinction meaningless, but I find it to be extremely important. Your belief that I’m wrong is, of course, not immoral.

                    5. Internet Random

                      You’re conveniently ignoring the parts about ignoring evidence… which is immoral inasmuch as it’s intellectual dishonesty.

                    6. DarthHater

                      “I’m not in the business of telling people other than my son what they can and can’t think or feel in their own minds.”

                      Unless the topic is baseball, of course…

            3. Norm

              “1) We’re all idiots for having this conversation here and we should feel bad.”
              I never thought I’d be pining for another “How about Vitters and Vogelbach for Justin Upton” type comment.

            4. caryatid62

              I agree with Kyle completely. However, Torii Hunter chose to voice his opinion, which is an action. The act of speaking to a reporter has specific and not-insignificant consequences. Therefore, it can be judged.

              1. Hebner The Gravedigger

                Yup, Hunter took the action of publicly speaking out. He is a known big-league player and his opinion is read by many. His opinion carries far more weight than any of ours, which is why he needs to think before speaking.

    2. Internet Random

      “A baseball blog isn’t the place for this sort of topic.”

      If a baseball player can comment on it, a baseball blog can too. Similar cases require similar treatment.

      “I don’t think acceptance for this sort of thing is going to be common place in my lifetime.”

      It already is.

  19. Fastball

    Devin Hester says he may retire. That would not be a loss at this juncture. He has lost his spark and has never developed into an offensive weapon. He is no longer a threat to run back punts and kick offs. I love the guy but I think his time being relevant has passed.

  20. Fastball

    What if it’s hurtful for him. Tolerance goes both ways IMO. Is our world about everything becoming common place or acceptable just because it’s out there. I don’t know the answer to that one. I don’t think it’s fair that people have to change their standards, beliefs or morals to suit others. If you can’t be true to yourself who can you be true to. I don’t think Hunter would have given his opinion if he wasn’t asked. I don’t think he is out banging a drum espousing his beliefs. He was asked a question and gave his answer. At least he is honest.

    1. EQ76

      amen brother..

    2. Andrew

      “I don’t think it’s fair that people have to change their standards, beliefs or morals to suit others.”

      So if I believe black people are inherently inferior to whites and I should never hire them or vote for them? Why should I have to change my standards and beliefs of white supremacy to suit other races?

      1. hansman1982

        You are not separating the belief from the action.

        I can hate anyone all I want for whatever reason I want, I can feel uncomfortable in their presence all I want but the second I want to cause them harm or demand they get different treatment than me is the second I cross the line from acceptable to unacceptable.

        If I think their lifestyle is a sin and answer a question honestly when asked, how is that wrong? Now, if I harass them about their lifestyle or act upon my belief that their lifestyle is a sin then I would be wrong.

        Now, if Hunter is not open to sitting next to his gay teammate or demands the team makes special accomodations then there is an issue. Maybe Hunter’s honesty can create a dialogue between the two to where Hunter may still think his lifestyle is wrong but be comfortable around him.

        Another example, pre-marital sex is believed to be a sin by Catholicism, so if I believe that people having pre-marital sex is a sin, does that make me a bigot against single people? Am I intolerant if being around people who do that makes me uncomfortable?

        1. Andrew

          If I am a white supremacist at heart, I am going to act on it. Maybe I don’t actually own slaves or burn crosses, but I definitely will do things that are unfair towards black people. If I’m an admissions officer, I’m going to admit more white students because I think they are superior students. If I’m renting out an apartment I’ll give it to white people who I think will pay rent on time more likely. If I’m giving a loan, I will give it to white people more likely. None of these are blatant actions you can point to as being racist because I didn’t do anything to people of other races, but nonetheless these are all terrible things for minorities as they put them at a disadvantage in life. Therefore I should be told that my white supremacist feelings are wrong and that I should change them.

          Also with regard to premarital sex. Not having sex before marriage is a choice someone can consciously make so it is very different. You also have no way of knowing whether someone has had premarital sex unless they told you so it is pretty irrelevant.

          1. OlderStyle

            “Also with regard to premarital sex. Not having sex before marriage is a choice someone can consciously make so it is very different. You also have no way of knowing whether someone has had premarital sex unless they told you so it is pretty irrelevant.”

            Having consensual sex is always a choice. How would anyone know someone else is gay unless they told one so?

            1. Andrew

              The same way people find out people are straight. If someone has pictures of their family and there are two men or two women in the picture, that’s a pretty likely sign they are gay. If you see them holding hands with someone of the same gender or kissing in public, another pretty good sign. Sex is a pretty private matter on the other hand.

              1. OlderStyle

                The point is, it’s not irrelevant. A person’s sexual orientation is not my business, nor is a person’s sexual life.
                You can argue all you want that orientation is not a choice but choosing to sleep with someone, whether of the same sex or not, is always a choice.

                1. Andrew

                  So they can be gay as long as they don’t show that they are in a relationship with people of the same gender in any way that a normal straight couple would i.e. keeping pictures of their loved ones in their locker or on their desk. Sounds so fair.

                  1. OlderStyle

                    You’re missing the context young sir. You said it’s irrelevant if a person has premarital sex, because one would not necessarily know. Likewise for someone who is gay. You can’t tell by looking at someone. And most people can infer someone is gay about as well as knowing someone has had premarital sex.
                    Again, your PC slant has you putting prejudice in my comments. The inherent fact that other people’s business is not my business, does not mean that I feel that I have the right to insist they repress their expressions.
                    Let’s stick to the definition of choice and orientation and maintain the integrity of those issues.

                    1. Andrew

                      I’m saying that if you are gay there are inevitable tells just like if you are straight. The people you know will know that you are in a relationship somehow just like they do when you’re straight. No one can tell youve had sex unless youre broadcasting it.

                      Their business doesn’t have to be your business but if you are normally fine with straight people having pictures of their loved ones in their lockers, you should be equally accepting of gay people doing the same.

                      “And most people can infer someone is gay about as well as knowing someone has had premarital sex.”

                      That’s simply not true. If a gay person has had a partner for several years, you will find it out if you know them. People dont just say that they have had or haven’t had premarital sex and there are no tells like there are for people that are gay.

          2. EvenBetterNewsV2.0

            Then do it Andrew. The same thing happens as a supremacist as a gay basher. If you act on anything with a mindset of hate towards a group, it is a hate crime. There are laws in place to not hate against other groups of people any kinds of people. If you run your business in the way you describe, that is fine. You are running the risk of missing out on business. The businessman will either maintain his level of business, or hurt, because that business goes elsewhere. Someone is making that money. It is his choice to run a risky business in that manner. Same thing with admissions. It is your choice. Although, I have never seen an admissions office give a damn about sexual preference. Hell, Harvard has a kinky sex club!!! People have a right to feel the way they do, but they don’t have a right to act on it.

            1. Andrew

              But what if every business acts in this way? And what if all colleges do choose to act like this? Sure the business loses out on some money and the colleges lose out on some intelligent people, but what if they don’t give a crap because they were happy to keep minorities who they feel uncomfortable around disenfranchised. Then the people who are uncomfortable with other races or gay people will elect people who are uncomfortable with other races or gay people. Then all of a sudden all the laws which protected minorities or gays get repealed so that people can be more public about their discomfort and all of a sudden we’re back in the antebellum south

            2. Randy

              Did Chick Fil-A just have that problem? I know it was something about donating money to Gay hate groups or something like that. I think they stopped for fear of losing customers, but not sure. Guess we should make them open on Sunday too because the owners beliefs are ignorant just because every other business opens on Sundays.

              1. Andrew

                Exactly. They donated to anti gay rights groups so people saw that that was wrong and took a stand against it through protests and boycotts. It is not simply okay for that company to think gayness is a sin. It means they will not hire anyone that is gay or treat gay people that come into their stores differently which isn’t fair. Being closed on Sundays doesn’t negatively effect any group of people more than another group of people.

                1. Pat

                  Show me where it was ever said they refused to hire gay people. You can’t. What happen was Rahm was going to allow the city alderman to prevent a franchise owner from opening his store because the owner of the corporation, not the franchise owner) stated he did not believe in gay marriage. That’s it.

                  The only discrimination in the entire story is on the part of Rahm and the alderman.

        2. caryatid62

          Ironically, you are also not separating the belief from the action. Hunter has a belief, which exists in his head. He chose to voice that belief, which is an action. Furthermore, he said that to a reporter, who would then convey that comment to millions of people and virtually everyone who has played with or against Hunter. The act of voicing the opinion has an impact on people, and therefore it can be judged as an action, not just as a belief.

          1. Patrick W.

            To put it in a more recognizable form: being uncomfortable is the “uncontrollable” feeling (a ridiculous thought but I’ll give it to you if it helps your understanding) and acting on it (by telling a reporter) is the “sin”.

            To suggest his mere mentioning his discomfort for being around a gay teammate is not hurtful is fails logical thought. If he had said he was uncomfortable around a teammate who was white or Japanese we would call him a bigot for being uncomfortable around a person for something uncontrollable. If he said he was uncomfortable around people who prefer the missionary position we would call him crazy for being concerned with a person’s sexual choice. If he said he was uncomfortable around a Jewish teammate we would call him a bigot for the religious intolerance and crazy for the confusion around private practices.

            Any way you slice it, Hunter is rightly due derision, whether you disagree with those of us who believe we did not choose our sexual preferences and chances.

            1. Patrick W.

              …are nobody else has either, or you disagree and think it is a choice, being uncomfortable is either bigoted or crazy, and should therefore be kept private.

    3. baldtaxguy

      Being true to oneself is not a license to address each and every question that is put to you. I don’t care what religion the players on my favorite team follow, what their views on abortion are, whether they are a Democrat or Republican (or neither), etc. I don’t care that Torii Hunter is uncomfortable, or comfortable, around gays in the same way he should realize that such personal views on controversial subjects are (a) likely controversial, and will therefore at least be viewed negatively by some portion of the consumers of his product, and the consumers of his employers’ product, and (b) are just that, personal, and not always required to be put out there. “No comment” as a response works well in endless ways.

  21. Fastball

    We can choose to disagree and not take it any further than that. I won’t get into an argument with anyone on it.

  22. ActionJackson

    What I think is funny is that the so called “Religious people” and Catholic Church judge gay people (as well as others things) but i am pretty sure that they also teach that “God” is the only one who can judge. I think religion is quite funny with the “wish washy” teachings and double standards. Not just picking on the Catholic church by the way….

    The only reason why the Catholic church looks down upon gays is because thousands of years ago (before science was involved) it was thought that sperm was the “seed of life” and that being gay was a waste of the “seed of life”.

    There is nothing wrong with gay individuals. That is part of life and we as human beings need to accept it and not be so closed minded and judgmental

    1. Jacob

      As a Catholic, I can tell you that we are taught not to “judge the person” for being gay. It’s like any other sin; you hate the sin, not the person. I’m not going to get into a huge argument about if it’s okay to hate it or not.. I’m not educated enough of the subject to voice my opinion. I just figured I’d clarify what they preach.

      I’ve had many conversations with people in the faith on the subject and this is what I’m told: Treat it like someone who cuses, or someone who robs a bank. You don’t hate the individual or look down on them, you hate the sin for why you think it’s wrong. They do say that God should be the judge, not us.

      1. cRAaZYHORSE

        Being Gay is not a sin. nor is like robbing a bank .

        1. Jimmy James

          But if you are a gay bank robber, boy howdy!

          1. Internet Random

            “[B]oy howdy!”

            I’m in favor of increased usage of this phrase.

  23. Picklenose

    Torii Hunter cites his Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin as his reason for being uncomfortable around a homosexual teammate. I find that attitude to be completely fine, if and only if he is also uncomfortable around any teammate who is cheating on his wife, or having sex without the benefit of marriage. He should also be uncomfortable around any teammate who is cheating on his taxes, took illegal benefits from a recruiter, or is taking recreational drugs, abusing his wife or children, taking the Lord’s name in vain, or any other sin that you might want to mention.
    Otherwise, I would guess that Torii Hunter has some masculinity/sexuality issues that he cannot resolve and he is using his faith as a way to justify his lack of comfort with homosexual teammates.

  24. Jacob

    Hey guys, FWIW, Torii Hunter said he was miss-quoted and two things he said got put together.

    1. Internet Random

      Did he clarify?

  25. #23

    It is interesting that the liberal activists that preach tolerance the most are the ones who are the least tolerant of any opinion or conviction other than their own. If someone believes that the homosexual lifestyle is unbiblical, he should have the right to voice that opinion without being crucified. Having said that, you still treat co-workers with decency and respect in the workplace no matter what the personal differences may be, but also I can understand why he might feel uncomfortable in a locker room shower with someone who chooses that lifestyle. Anyways, back to baseball.

    1. Andrew

      If an opinion is wrong and leads to the harm to others, it should not be tolerated. Anti-gay beliefs, no matter what their reasoning should be tolerated just as much as racist beliefs which is to say not at all.

      1. Pat

        What opinion are we talking about here? Hunter said he was uncomfortable around gays. Assuming he is not lying, that is a fact, not an opinion.

  26. cubfanincardinalland

    I swear real life is stranger than fiction. I know whenever I need advice on life’s issues, I always look to that devout Christian athlete Torri Hunter.
    The same Torri Hunter who has four children with four different mothers(that’s the ones he knows about), and who has a 17 year old son currently facing trial for the drugging and gang rape of numerous female high school classmates. Please Torri, oh wise one, what moral guidance can you give me? Then again, maybe you could just shut up and play ball, thankfully not for the Cubs.

    1. #23

      You can’t judge whether or not he is a devout christian now based on his past. Maybe he made changes in his life after those problems. I think the question itself was meant to be controversial and I agree he should have just said no comment to maintain a professional image focused on the game itself. It probably wasn’t his responsibility to jump into the fray on a question like that. He probably learned his lesson.

  27. OlderStyle

    “I’m saying that if you are gay there are inevitable tells just like if you are straight. The people you know will know that you are in a relationship somehow just like they do when you’re straight. No one can tell youve had sex unless youre broadcasting it.”
    We’re talking about human beings across the whole spectrum. It’s not a poker game, no one can tell with total certainty whether a stranger or acquaintance is gay or having premarital sex. If you spend time with a person and get to know them, you may end up knowing these things. But, I can work with someone my whole career and never know if they were gay or sleeping around. Heck, wives find these things out about their husbands after years of marriage, there are no “inevitable tells”. I’ve had women ask if I was gay and gay men hit on me when I was young, so there are no tells. You have not been around long enough to pick this up.
    Again, you’ve sidestepped the real issue. When a person willingly sleeps with someone else, that is a choice. Having an orientation, and that involves a whole spectrum of attractions, is something a person may have inherently. They are distinctly different issues.

  28. Greenroom

    As a sociologist, here is my two cents. The Kinsey reports on sexuality asserts that sexuality is a continuum, not a dichotomy. People can float from one end of the continuum to the other and points in between. Due to our culture and social structure, some people “define/see things/actions” as either/or, not on a continuum. Hence engaging in one homosexual activity makes you “gay” in some peoples minds, even if the person goes on to live a strictly heterosexual lifestyle.

    Also, Robert Merton’s work on race, to some extent, could be applied to a lot of the discussion here on the intersection of actions and attitudes/beliefs. There are people who are prejudiced (negative attitude/belief), but don’t discriminate (action) (timid bigot), for example people who disagree/dont like you, but are “nice” to you when they see you and/or don’t have any negative actions towards you. Then there are people who discriminate who aren’t prejudice (fair weather liberal), for example, whites in the 50′s who may have asked non-whites to go to the back of the restaurant for service due to public pressure or concerns, but in their mind (perhaps via religion beliefs, etc) have no negative beliefs about you.

    I believe this whole topic of gays in sports will go by the “wayside” for the majority of people. just like it was once thought “unholy” to see whites marry/date, non-whites.

    Go Cubs~

  29. mudge

    Like the man said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Not so easy, is it? Happy New Year everyone ~

  30. Tom

    Any Cubs baseball news ?