Andy Pettitte makes a comeback

[False1]

he's saying that all laws and customs are inherently culture bound and relativistic. There's no absolute code of conduct, everything is contingent on the group and society you affiliate with.

and in this increasingly atomized world, to feel more confederation with this codified abstraction of social norms known as the law over the kinship of your friends and family is absurd.

I guess that depends on how you feel about the laws you are subject to. I think it's quite entirely possible to act within the law without sacrificing ties to kin. And I think there are situations where certain laws should be adhered to in spite of implications to friends.

Pettitte and Clemens both took a banned substance and (unfortunately/ridiculously) were asked to testify to a grand jury about it. I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect Andy to lie to a grand jury and risk being jailed and separated from his family just so he could protect Clemens' legacy. The issue isn't that Andy is a "narc." The issue is that Clemens passed (allegedly) on his opportunity to also tell the truth. It's not as if Andy said he was clean, that Clemens was selling illegal substances and sold him down a river. He told the truth, which is what Clemens should have done.

That's a pretty good argument.

However in the case of Pettitte and Clemens, at the point where it came down to Pettitte possibly having to go to jail shouldn't Clemens have stepped up and gotten him off the hook? Loyalty should go both ways.

Excellent counterpoint.

[Eldee5]

http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2012/03/2...e-this-spring/

Andy Pettitte said he feels some normal soreness in his lower half today, but nothing out of the ordinary. He went through fielding drills yesterday, and he feels the need to keep doing that regularly to get himself into playing shape. He’s been throwing bullpens for several weeks, but yesterday was the first time he did anything like field ground balls or cover first base.

“I asked how he was doing today,” Joe Girardi said. “But that’s a normal conversation I would have with anybody.”

Both Pettitte and Girardi said it’s vital that the Yankees stick to their schedule with Pettitte. Even if his body is feeling better than expected, the Yankees have to keep themselves from pushing him too much. Pettitte said he feels the need to be honest with himself and the team. If he needs an extra day, he’ll take it.

Pettitte and Girardi each believe it’s realistic that Pettitte might get into a game before the Yankees break camp.

[HelloNewman]

I've got tickets to the exhibition games in the new Marlins stadium. It would be awesome if he made his 2012 debut in one of those. In a way it makes sense because it would be his last chance to face major league hitters before pitching against them in real games.

[DiMaggio5CF]

whatever sense of social solidarity and duty that yanksftw is citing is no less or more ethically sound than the one many of the rest of you feel toward the collection of abstractions-&-douchebags-enacting-them that we call the law. both are equally ridiculous and yet important to people.

Not sure why this is directed at me. It was yanksftw who brought up and criticized Pettitte's handling of the situation and said that he doesn't understand how anyone could see it differently.

sentimental signing based more on nostalgia than rationality don't understand how people just forgive this guy for using hgh and snitching on the rocket like it's all good

I'm just not a fan of the street-tough "where I come from" argument. As I said before, the Pettitte-Clemens argument has been done to death, so I don't really care to comment at all about the substance of yanksftw's post.

[SatchelPaigeYankee]

Yeah, I should just be able to shoot people and take their stuff.

Stupid laws.

Were there no laws, I would not be shooting people and taking their stuff. And, I suspect, neither would you (or are you saying that you would?). That's because of the socialization of norms/ethics we have. That is, the code of ethics (combined with other stuff) is what determines our actions. This is essentially what DiMaggio5CF and yanksftw both said (and both would do); they were just pointing to different codes. That's what I was saying. The code yanksftw was pointing to no less valid than DiMaggio5CF's; it just applies to a different subculture. And, of course, each person is going to think the other's is hogwash.


Being able to see this and point it out is pretty useful. Indeed, trying to actually understand why a person might have a different viewpoint is a useful thing to do in general, ya know.

Concerning the supposed social repercussions of "lawlessness," I could suggest some literature for you, if you're interested.

[False1]

Were there no laws, I would not be shooting people and taking their stuff. And, I suspect, neither would you (or are you saying that you would?). That's because of the socialization of norms/ethics we have. That is, the code of ethics (combined with other stuff) is what determines our actions. This is essentially what DiMaggio5CF and yanksftw both said (and both would do); they were just pointing to different codes. That's what I was saying. The code yanksftw was pointing to no less valid than DiMaggio5CF's; it just applies to a different subculture. And, of course, each person is going to think the other's is hogwash.


Being able to see this and point it out is pretty useful. Indeed, trying to actually understand why a person might have a different viewpoint is a useful thing to do in general, ya know.

Concerning the supposed social repercussions of "lawlessness," I could suggest some literature for you, if you're interested.

I'm not sure how Pettitte "snitching" on Clemens turned into a conversation on absolute lawlessness, but guy you've got to be kidding me here. It's absolutely naive to think that an absolute absence of law in this society wouldn't be cataclysmic.

[DiMaggio5CF]

I'm not sure how Pettitte "snitching" on Clemens turned into a conversation on absolute lawlessness, but guy you've got to be kidding me here. It's absolutely naive to think that an absolute absence of law in this society wouldn't be cataclysmic.

Furthermore, I don't understand how I keep getting brought into this. As I mentioned in my most recent post before this one, I was responding to yanksftw's tough-guy attitude rather than the sentiment and substance behind it. I do not wish to get involved in, or be included in, this debate in any way, shape, or form on either side. But for some reason, Satch seems intent on referring to an argument that I never made.

[SatchelPaigeYankee]

I'm not sure how Pettitte "snitching" on Clemens turned into a conversation on absolute lawlessness, but guy you've got to be kidding me here. It's absolutely naive to think that an absolute absence of law in this society wouldn't be cataclysmic.

I didn't mention anything about this society specifically*, but rather societies generally. This isn't wishy washy naive rubbish, but based in sociology, social psych., and anthropological observations of actual human societies and how they have responded when large, superimposed hegemons have disappeared. What causes social conflict is scarcity and/or perceived scarcity. People organize spotaneously without having to be told what to do; they create their own laws through their mere actions and norms. But this is actually obvious; humans are social animals, not sociopaths. Like I said, you and I don't choose not to kill people because of some law that would send us to prison, but because of internalized norms we have. Those wouldn't go away. This is part of what I study, though, so... yeah, I don't think it's naivete. If anything, the "but we'd all kill each other!!!!" view is the naive one, since it's not really based in anything besides the fact that it's the view that any current government prefers to perpetuate, no offense. But hey, let's return to talking about Pettitte.


*I agree on first blush that this country would have some conflict most immediately, but only in certain places/parts of the country, and it's a complex issue. Where conflict would arise is likely in those places where already there is conflict (high crime-rates) that is currently suppressed via oppression of the local populace (more conflict in the form of a lot of police violence--physical and not--against the population). This makes sense though. Equally, places where people are a bit freer (sp?) from state influence (like certain types of rural/semi-rural areas) would experience little change (at least at first). It's complicated, though.


But yeah, Pettitte. Eh, good for him and the Yankees, I guess, but I hope Hughes holds his spot. It'd do more for our team going forward.

[JL25and3]

I didn't mention anything about this society specifically*, but rather societies generally. This isn't wishy washy naive rubbish, but based in sociology, social psych., and anthropological observations of actual human societies and how they have responded when large, superimposed hegemons have disappeared. What causes social conflict is scarcity and/or perceived scarcity. People organize spotaneously without having to be told what to do; they create their own laws through their mere actions and norms. But this is actually obvious; humans are social animals, not sociopaths. Like I said, you and I don't choose not to kill people because of some law that would send us to prison, but because of internalized norms we have. Those wouldn't go away. This is part of what I study, though, so... yeah, I don't think it's naivete. If anything, the "but we'd all kill each other!!!!" view is the naive one, since it's not really based in anything besides the fact that it's the view that any current government prefers to perpetuate, no offense. But hey, let's return to talking about Pettitte.


*I agree on first blush that this country would have some conflict most immediately, but only in certain places/parts of the country, and it's a complex issue. Where conflict would arise is likely in those places where already there is conflict (high crime-rates) that is currently suppressed via oppression of the local populace (more conflict in the form of a lot of police violence--physical and not--against the population). This makes sense though. Equally, places where people are a bit freer (sp?) from state influence (like certain types of rural/semi-rural areas) would experience little change (at least at first). It's complicated, though.


But yeah, Pettitte. Eh, good for him and the Yankees, I guess, but I hope Hughes holds his spot. It'd do more for our team going forward.

What does Hugo Chavez think about this?

[SatchelPaigeYankee]

What does Hugo Chavez think about this?

???

We're not allowed to talk about politics on this forum.

[jcarey]

I didn't mention anything about this society specifically*, but rather societies generally. This isn't wishy washy naive rubbish, but based in sociology, social psych., and anthropological observations of actual human societies and how they have responded when large, superimposed hegemons have disappeared. What causes social conflict is scarcity and/or perceived scarcity. People organize spotaneously without having to be told what to do; they create their own laws through their mere actions and norms.

Just a gut reaction, but wouldn't this be different depending on the complexity and advancement of the society at the time? A society already built on hard laws rather than soft cultural norms would seemingly not do so well if the hard law was removed.

But this is actually obvious; humans are social animals, not sociopaths. Like I said, you and I don't choose not to kill people because of some law that would send us to prison, but because of internalized norms we have. Those wouldn't go away.

Call me a sociopath, but if I could get away with half the stuff that is illegal, I would probably do it. But even in the absence of hard law, it'd probably lead to me getting my ass kicked, which is why I wouldn't do it. There's always someone bigger who can take your things.

This is part of what I study, though, so... yeah, I don't think it's naivete. If anything, the "but we'd all kill each other!!!!" view is the naive one, since it's not really based in anything besides the fact that it's the view that any current government prefers to perpetuate, no offense. But hey, let's return to talking about Pettitte.

If the world all of a sudden became anarchical, groups of people would just develop their own laws to govern themselves. It may begin as more crude cultural norms that you refer to, but it's still law. And if those didn't exist, yes, I think people really would be killing each other. Isn't that why we're social? For protection?

[Yankee Fan in Boston]

I wonder what Andy Pettitte would think about this?

[jcarey]

I wonder what Andy Pettitte would think about this?

I've been reading all these posts in his Texas drawl.

[SatchelPaigeYankee]

Just a gut reaction, but wouldn't this be different depending on the complexity and advancement of the society at the time? A society already built on hard laws rather than soft cultural norms would seemingly not do so well if the hard law was removed.

Call me a sociopath, but if I could get away with half the stuff that is illegal, I would probably do it. But even in the absence of hard law, it'd probably lead to me getting my ass kicked, which is why I wouldn't do it. There's always someone bigger who can take your things.

If the world all of a sudden became anarchical, groups of people would just develop their own laws to govern themselves. It may begin as more crude cultural norms that you refer to, but it's still law. And if those didn't exist, yes, I think people really would be killing each other. Isn't that why we're social? For protection?

I like your instincts. You have the right analytical predispositions; things aren't ever as distant and difference as they seem. We only differ in our terminology and the gravitas we attach to certain terms.

"And if those didn't exist, yes, I think people really would be killing each other" And the parallels between a supposed anarchical society and the one we live in continue.

[Eldee5]

http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2012/03/2...eady-progress/

Pettitte said it’s not important to him that he gets in a game this spring, but he is anxious to get in a game somewhere. He just wants to face hitters who aren’t on his team, and that should be a test. Joe Girardi still thinks it’s possible Pettitte will get in one of those last two games against the Mets before the Yankees break camp.

“I’m trying to get (my legs) to where I can drive and explode 100 pitches and I’m a long way from there,” Pettitte said. “I want to be strong. You want to be strong when you land. The last three or four pitches I threw, if you just land not quite as strong on that front side, the ball might be off this much and that’s a ball or a strike. That’s all part of the process. I’m getting there, and I’m feeling good, and so far so good.”

[Eldee5]

http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/news/...k_nyy&c_id=nyy

TAMPA, Fla. -- Andy Pettitte took what he called "another step in the right direction" on Saturday morning as he continues his comeback attempt, throwing two simulated innings at George M. Steinbrenner Field.

Pettitte threw 25 of 33 pitches for strikes in the session, working to Yankees Minor Leaguers Dante Bichette, Jr. and Benjamin Gamel. Pettitte was caught by Minor Leaguer Jeff Farnham.

"I feel good," Pettitte said. "I felt very strong in the first inning. In the second inning, I got some good fatigue."

The Yankees are considering having Pettitte appear for an inning on Wednesday against the Mets, their final game of the spring, but Pettitte said he would confer with pitching coach Larry Rothschild about the next step in his process.

[ThePinStripes]

I didn't mention anything about this society specifically*, but rather societies generally. This isn't wishy washy naive rubbish, but based in sociology, social psych., and anthropological observations of actual human societies and how they have responded when large, superimposed hegemons have disappeared. What causes social conflict is scarcity and/or perceived scarcity. People organize spotaneously without having to be told what to do; they create their own laws through their mere actions and norms. But this is actually obvious; humans are social animals, not sociopaths. Like I said, you and I don't choose not to kill people because of some law that would send us to prison, but because of internalized norms we have. Those wouldn't go away. This is part of what I study, though, so... yeah, I don't think it's naivete. If anything, the "but we'd all kill each other!!!!" view is the naive one, since it's not really based in anything besides the fact that it's the view that any current government prefers to perpetuate, no offense. But hey, let's return to talking about Pettitte.


*I agree on first blush that this country would have some conflict most immediately, but only in certain places/parts of the country, and it's a complex issue. Where conflict would arise is likely in those places where already there is conflict (high crime-rates) that is currently suppressed via oppression of the local populace (more conflict in the form of a lot of police violence--physical and not--against the population). This makes sense though. Equally, places where people are a bit freer (sp?) from state influence (like certain types of rural/semi-rural areas) would experience little change (at least at first). It's complicated, though.


But yeah, Pettitte. Eh, good for him and the Yankees, I guess, but I hope Hughes holds his spot. It'd do more for our team going forward.

I read an interesting study where athiests and agnostics were more compassionate and less violent and etc than religious people. It was really interesting that those governed by a higher law were less likely to follow it than those who weren't.

Also, there is the physics/bio-chemical explanation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

We're empathetic.

[Yanks3]

Word from Andy Pettitte at GMS earlier this afternoon is he'll pitch an inning Wednesday against the Mets in ST finale

Erik Boland of Newsday

[hogwild]

I would love to see Andy get another ring. He's kinda like the Whitey Ford of our generation.

[Eldee5]

http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2012/04/0...ind-the-plate/

• Andy Pettitte is not with the team. He’s back in Tampa preparing for his first minor league start, which will probably come on Monday. “I would anticipate that he’ll be on a regular schedule now,” Joe Girardi said. “Throw a side in couple of days, make a start and just continue to build up.”

[Mr Coffee]

http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2012/04/0...ind-the-plate/

Isn't the team in Tampa?

[Eldee5]

Isn't the team in Tampa?

Well, St. Petersburg actually.

[Eldee5]

https://twitter.com/#!/eboland11/sta...99898230292481

Pettitte threw 45-pitch bullpen this morning in Tampa and is still in line to pitch Monday, probably in an extended ST game

[Eldee5]

http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2012/04/0...n-the-infield/

• Andy Pettitte is scheduled to pitch two innings for High-A Tampa tonight. It will be his first start since signing a minor league deal last month.

[HerbieLee20]

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) New York Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte allowed one run and two hits over three innings for Class-A Tampa Monday night ...
. He threw 26 of 32 pitches for strikes.
''I felt good with everything,'' Pettitte said. ''Just another good step.''
Pettitte said the current plan for him is to make another start with Tampa on Sunday.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/pettitt...AL76VuHOqFCLcF