Skip to content

Great Moments in Chutzpah: Curt Schilling speaks

May 29, 2012, 1:00 PM EST

Curt Schilling Reuters

Curt Schilling has spent many years promoting conservative candidates and causes and styled himself a champion of private enterprise, limited spending and self-reliance. Good for him. Even if I don’t agree with his political views, I do not believe that anyone has a monopoly on wisdom and I respect those views as a legitimate alternative to the things I believe. Noble opposition if you will.

However, just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no conservatives when business is poor.  And as for responsibility and self-reliance? Well, Curt Schilling is not a big fan of those things these days:

In his first public remarks on the company’s problems, Schilling told the newspaper for its Tuesday editions that public remarks by Gov. Lincoln Chafee that the state was trying to keep his company solvent were “devastating.” He said that shortly after those remarks, a video-game publisher pulled out of a deal to finance a new game.

“The governor is not operating in the best interest of the company by any stretch, or the taxpayers, or the state,” Schilling told the newspaper. “We’re trying to save this company and we’re working 24/7. The public commentary has been as big a piece of what’s happening to us as anything out there.”

Yes, it’s the government’s fault for daring to speak when you defaulted on your obligations, Schilling. Obligations you made in order to receive breaks and incentives from that same government.  Don’t like the spotlight? Tough. As The Common Man wrote earlier today, you live by your fame and personal brand, you die by it too.

And either way: if you think taking handouts from the government is a bad idea, don’t take them. And if you do, don’t complain when the government gets somewhat antagonistic with you.

101 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. Jonny 5 - May 29, 2012 at 1:04 PM

    I bet he hides his face in a towel in company board meetings. If he even shows up to them anyway.

    • rollinghighwayblues - May 29, 2012 at 1:09 PM

      I wish he would do that all the time. I’ve seen him as an analyst on ESPN a couple times and he looks absolutely terrible and bloated.

      • drewzducks - May 29, 2012 at 5:30 PM

        I’m guessing sitting in a bean bag chair and playing video games all day long after having been a pro athlete for about 20 years isn’t the best combination.

    • jimbo1949 - May 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM

      You mean to say that he doesn’t show up at meetings wearing his bloody sock pinned to his chest? How would anybody know who he is?

  2. mybrunoblog - May 29, 2012 at 1:08 PM

    What’s with that picture of Schilling? He looks like Satan and the photo was taken in hell.

    • heyblueyoustink - May 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM

      I don’t think the dark fallen angel Lucifer would want anything to do with this bozo.

      • yahmule - May 30, 2012 at 12:26 AM

        Seriously, I think you owe old Beelzebub an apology.

      • mikecubbie69 - May 31, 2012 at 1:06 PM

        Thanks, dude, I needed a good laugh! I know you shouldnt laugh at others misfortune, but Schilling has brought it all on himself! And everybody knows Karma is a real b*tch!

    • WhenMattStairsIsKing - May 29, 2012 at 1:18 PM

      I think you answered your own question.

  3. ajcardsfan - May 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM

    I’ve always laughed at the contradiction.
    CEO of Company X:”Dear Government, please bail my company out.”
    [Government pays for bailout]
    [Government attempts to exert authority over said company for trying to do something stupid]
    CEO of Company X:”Dear Government, please keep your hands off my business. Give us less regulations, what are we communists!”
    Ozzie Guillen:”Hells yeah!”

  4. pellypell - May 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM

    If there ever was a face worth punching, this is it.

  5. lmoneyfresh - May 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM

    You’ve got it wrong. Conservative blowhards like Schilling are against handouts for poor people. They’re all about corporate handouts.

    • dowhatifeellike - May 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

      They’ll gladly take money to put coal in the furnace but cry when the same money is used to repair the track.

    • braddavery - May 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

      lol Exactly.

    • rg3isvictory - May 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

      You’re right, poor people are usually poor for a reason. Very few wealthy families got there watching tv all day!

      • samuellsamson - Jun 4, 2012 at 11:51 AM

        No they are mostly wealthy because they inherited it from wealthy parents and grandparents.

  6. tmohr - May 29, 2012 at 2:07 PM

    I believe it was the great Charlie Pierce who said of Schilling, “He wants a government just big enough to fit into his wallet.”

  7. Marty - May 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

    Is this like when a liberal takes a paycheck from a cut throat mega corporation like NBC?

    • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

      If, by that, you mean that people pounce on hypocrisy and lambast moronic intellectual lightweights like Curt Schilling, then I hope so. Is there really any viable defense for him that you can think of? If there isn’t, then why waste the 1s and 0s it took to make it look like you were trying to?

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 2:48 PM

        I don’t particularly agree with Marty, but don’t you think that constructing a flimsy straw man argument to make your point is rather like the pot calling the kettle black, i.e., hypocritical, moronic and intellectually lightweight? Couldn’t you do any better then that?

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM

        I suppose I don’t really see your point, protius. Do all liberals hate all corporations? Are all corporations bad actors? Or are you and Marty painting all liberals with the same broad brush? Schilling ran his own company and took government money despite making public statements about how government shouldn’t be in the business of interfering in private industry. So again, how was my argument a straw man?

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 6:10 PM

        Common Man,

        Your perception that “all liberals hate all corporations” is irrelevant. Whether or not all corporations are bad actors is also irrelevant. And I’m sure Liberals do not need me to paint them with a brush of any size.

        You make reference to Curt Schilling “making public statements about how government shouldn’t be in the business of interfering in private industry”. If you could please cite verifiable sources, I would like to have the same information that you have, so that I can discuss that information with you on equal terms.

        You wrote: “So again, how was my argument a straw man?”

        I’ll address this for the first time; a straw man argument is when you construct a false, inaccurate or misleading argument and then you attribute it to someone.

        Marty wrote: “Is this like when a liberal takes a paycheck from a cut throat mega corporation like NBC?” and you replied: “If, by that, you mean that people pounce on hypocrisy and lambast moronic intellectual lightweights like Curt Schilling, then I hope so.”

        As anyone can plainly see, Marty didn’t say or imply anything about hypocrisy or lambasting moronic intellectual lightweights, and he certainly didn’t say or imply anything negative about Curt Schilling, but your ending, “I hope so” certainly does.

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM

        Protius,

        1) It is not my perception that all liberals hate corporations. Quite the opposite. What I was referring to, and which you apparently misunderstood, is Marty’s implication that liberals hate corporations; therefore it would be equally hypocritical for Craig to work for NBC as it is for Schilling to have actively sought and accepted money from the Rhode Island government when he’s against government “handouts” on general principle.

        2) Please learn to use Google. It’s not my job to get you up to speed if you want to participate in the discussion.

        3) Perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension before you start quoting the definitions of logical fallacies. Marty was clearly implying that Craig was being a hypocrite. I pointed out what should have been clear to you, that, rather, Craig was pointing out Schilling’s hypocrisy, and challenging him to defend Schilling if he felt strongly enough to belittle the post and the issue at hand. That’s not a straw man.

        4)

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 7:01 PM

        Sorry, that should read

        4) Have a good evening. I’m going to go watch some baseball.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM

        Common Man,

        Apparently you don’t understand what a straw man argument is, even if I spell it out for you. Have you been taking clever lessons from jwbiii?

        You wrote: “It would be equally hypocritical for Craig to work for NBC as it is for Schilling to have actively sought and accepted money from the Rhode Island government when he’s against government “handouts” on general principle.” Sorry but according to the article, Rhode Island government officials lured Schilling from Massachusetts with a $75 million loan. He didn’t actively seek anything. Now, was Mr. Calcaterra lured by NBC by a cash offer? If not then there is a difference between the two cases and you can not say that the one equals the other.

        You wrote: “Please learn to use Google. It’s not my job to get you up to speed if you want to participate in the discussion.” Are you really this ignorant? Or are you just trying to be humorous in a stupid/stubborn kinda way? I know how to use Google better then you. And I never said it was your job. Are you naturally obtuse? I only want the same information that you have. Can your pea sized brain process that?

        Perhaps you need to better understand logical fallacies. I don’t normally work with the intellectually handicapped, but I’ll try to make it simple so you can roll with the details: A straw man argument occurs when you construct a false, inaccurate or misleading argument and then you attribute it to someone.

        You are so academically inept that you managed to fail the straw man test in your first section. Your point that both Mr. Calcaterra and Curt Schilling were being hypocritical is taken. However, Schilling was lured from Massachusetts with a loan (A handout). Was Mr. Calcaterra offered a bonus (A handout) to sign with NBC? If Mr. Calcaterra wasn’t offered a handout to sign with NBC, then he didn’t receive the same incentive as Schilling did from Rhode Island government officials to leave Massachusetts. Therefore, you constructed a false, inaccurate and misleading straw man argument. Furthermore, in your comments of 2:15PM, you only referred to Schilling as a moronic intellectual lightweight and not Curt Schilling. If you don’t refer to both parties equally, then you have constructed a false, inaccurate and misleading straw man argument.

        Class is over. You can go back to manipulating your broom handle.

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 11:12 PM

        Oh please. I’m not going to waste my valuable time that could be spent mocking you digging through articles from months (or longer) ago. And again, I made no point that Craig was being hypocritical. You continue to misinterpret and/or misrepresent that. My point was that Marty thought it was hypocritical for a liberal to work at NBC. Which is ludicrous on its face.

        And when one accepts that as the Marty’s central premise, my comment makes sense. And again we’re back to you quoting the rules of debate at me. To which I’ll point out that this is a blog comments section, and sometimes eminently lampoonable people get lampooned. Please feel free to see virtually any blog post on the Internet for confirmation (sorry, I don’t have a link to share).

    • jarathen - May 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

      It’s exactly the same thing! You win the game of 100% Accurate Parallels! Way to go!

    • nightman13 - May 29, 2012 at 2:20 PM

      All the media companies in the world are owned by conservatives, so if you want to work in media you have to collect a paycheck from a mega corporation. That doesn’t mean you have to align your politics with them.

      Get educated, then run your mouth.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM

        You wrote: “All the media companies in the world are owned by conservatives”. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

        NPR, a media company, had it’s funding cut by congress because it was accused of being too Liberal. Some Congressmen even said NPR were downright socialist.

        Many people consider CBS to be a very Democratic/Liberal leaning media company. How about The Washington Post? It’s the print media, but it’s still a media company, and it is a left leaning media company. The same can be said for The New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times, both have Liberal tendencies.

        In your opinion, would a Conservative have to compromise his or her politics to collect a paycheck from these Liberal media bastions?

        Does the fact that there are Democratic/Liberal leaning media companies mean that your observation: “All the media companies in the world are owned by conservatives”, is inaccurate?

      • nightman13 - May 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM

        Most of the major media companies in the US roll up into a handful of parent companies, all of which are owned by conservatives.

        Even if a company is owned by a conservative, there can be liberal content in their media. Media companies are all about ratings, so why leave out a large segment of the population by adhering to strictly conservative media?

      • basedrum777 - May 29, 2012 at 4:32 PM

        The issue you are having with the argument is that the implication is that 1) “all big corporations are evil” and 2) that a liberal opinion makes you in conflict with big corporations. Liberals don’t hate all big corporations. They just dislike big corporations who don’t use that size to try to better the world we live in, which IS possible.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM

        Basedrum,

        Clearly, you have misunderstood the argument.

        Nightman wrote: “All the media companies in the world are owned by conservatives”. He claimed that working for a conservative media company didn’t mean that one had to compromise his or her Liberal principles. The argument is: Must an individual compromise his or her politico-economic beliefs in order to work for a media company?

        I’ll paraphrase what you wrote:
        The issue you are having with the argument is that the implication is:
        1) Big corporations are evil.
        2) Liberal opinions put you in conflict with big corporations.
        Liberals don’t hate all big corporations. They just dislike big corporations who don’t use their size to try to better the world we live in, which is possible.

        As the readers can plainly see: The argument “All the media companies in the world are owned by conservatives” has nothing what-so-ever to do with the socio-politico beliefs that you suggest.

    • Marty - May 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM

      Hey, happy to have won the game of parallels.

      I just wish we could all live ideologically pure lives just like Craig.

      Regarding intellectual weight, Craig picked the low hanging fruit.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 4:43 PM

        Marty,

        Don’t you find it curious, and amusing that your comments gather many thumbs down, but neither Common Man, Mr. Calcaterra or any of the thumbers for that matter, will engage you in a quality discussion. It’s as if they’re all afraid of being exposed, overcome or overwhelmed. Pity.

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 5:18 PM

        Dear Protius, Get bent. And also, see below.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 6:47 PM

        Common Man,

        I had figured you for the stiff, pedantic, broom handle up the ass type, but you’re quite emotional, aren’t you.

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM

        Protius, I resented your implication that I was dodging you. It’s a douchey implication to make. I’ve responded to your comments. Now, go watch some baseball. And continue to get bent.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 8:25 PM

        Common Man,

        Stop twisting the broom handle, or we’ll need a stone mason to chisel the smile off your face.

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 11:01 PM

        Yeah, I’m not getting the broom handle comment. It’s apparently a running gag with you though, so…good for you. I’m sure it was funny in your head.

      • Marty - May 29, 2012 at 11:49 PM

        Potius, I was never trying to be engaged by ethical hypocrites. In that respect, people like Schilling and Calcaterra can avoid me forever and I’d be just fine with it.

  8. mcsnide - May 29, 2012 at 2:10 PM

    Time to update the douchenozzle list, El Bravo.

  9. Kevin S. - May 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM

    Craig, please don’t perpetuate the myth that there are no atheists in foxholes. It’s bad enough that the Christian Right has tried to co-opt the military as their own, there’s no need to hand it to them.

    • electstat - May 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM

      I didn’t know Craig spent any time in uniform in a foxhole.

    • mississippimusicman - May 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM

      From an episode of M*A*S*H I saw this week on TVLand:

      Hawkeye Pierce (to a wounded soldier): Would you like to talk to Father Mulcahy?
      Soldier: I’m an atheist.
      Hawkeye: Really?
      Soldier: Swear to God!

    • yahmule - May 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM

      This is true. Pat Tillman, among others, put that old misperception to rest.

  10. bbk1000 - May 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM

    Craig a liberal? What a shocker….

    • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM

      Curt Schilling a backstabbing, hypocratic, blowhard, traitor to the Conservative beliefs he espouses? What a shocker….

      • lmoneyfresh - May 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM

        Zing.

      • 18thstreet - May 29, 2012 at 4:19 PM

        A traitor? Hardly. An exemplar of conservative values.

  11. davidofseattle - May 29, 2012 at 2:48 PM

    Personally, I cringe when my sports heroes open their mouths in politics. I wish he had kept his mouth shut so us Sox fans can just savor some favorite moments without the BS coming out of his mouth that taints those memories.

    He just makes himself out to be “just another hypocrite” actions contradicting his words, but you have to wonder if he is even worse from perhaps having assumed his (former) reputation as “local sports hero” would allow him to get exceptional treatment with taxpayer money?

  12. bbk1000 - May 29, 2012 at 3:09 PM

    Aside from you, the only person who mentioned Schilling was Craig, who also mentioned his own political beliefs.

    Nice coming to Craig’s side though, it probably reminds him of this youth when his sister used to beat up everyone who picked on him.

    Comman man….whatever…

    • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM

      I’m just saying, the article’s not about liberal policies or beliefs. It’s about Schilling’s beliefs, his betrayal of those beliefs, and the repercussions of those decisions, which reveal him to be both a hypocrite and a liar.

      Also, sounds like Craig had one tough sister. Good for her.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 4:32 PM

        Common Man,

        I just finished reading all the available information at providencejournal.com, and I haven’t found anything there about Schilling’s personal belief system. If “the article’s not about liberal policies or beliefs”, then why is Curt Schilling’s personal belief system an issue?

        If you have acquired information about Curt Schilling’s personal belief system from a source other then the article, then please inform the readers where we can access this information so we can discuss those beliefs with you on equal terms. Otherwise, the readers have no way of knowing if your portrayal of Curt Schilling is true or false.

      • basedrum777 - May 29, 2012 at 4:37 PM

        protius a quick google search will show you a bevy of quotes from the man, the myth, the legend, Curt Schill (ing) about how the government should stay out of people’s business and that the bailout was a disgustingly unamerican happening.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

        Basedrum,

        I don’t mean to split hairs, but isn’t there a difference between a bail out to a failed corporation, and a loan to lure a small business from one state into another state to help boost the luring state’s economy?

        I wonder why Common Man is silent on the subject?

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM

        Sorry Protius. I apparently didn’t check the page for a half hour to see your comment, which may help to explain was I was so silent. Ass.

        Anyway, Schilling is a well-known and vocal conservative and fiscal hawk, who has decried government intrusion into private capital, as basedrum pointed out. It’s not my job to Google for you.

        Now, as someone who has beaten this drum (I mean Schilling, not basedrum), for him to criticize the governor of Rhode Island for not spending additional money on his company is hypocrisy, particularly when he already accepted public funds to relocate his business. And while this is certainly a difference in magnitude from the Federal government bailing out a multinational banking entity, the money provided by the state of Rhode Island is not insignificant, and is designed (at least in Curt Schilling’s head) as a means to keep his company solvent, which the Governor of Rhode Island doesn’t think is akin to throwing good money after bad.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 6:41 PM

        Common Man,
        Sorry to see that I got you so upset that it affected your writing. My apologies.

        I’m also sorry to inform you that according to the commonly accepted, informal rules of debate and discussion if you are asked to cite a source or to provide information then you are morally obliged to do so, and if you refuse, then you lose your credibility.
        Therefore, if you can not or will not support your claim, then your claim that Curt Schilling betrayed his own beliefs, and is a hypocrite and a liar is just unsubstantiated hogwash.

        You wrote: “for him (Schilling) to criticize the governor of Rhode Island for not spending additional money on his company is hypocrisy, particularly when he already accepted public funds to relocate his business.” I read all the articles at providencejournal.com and I didn’t find any statement from Schilling asking for additional capital spending from the state of Rhode Island. If you have any evidence to support your claim please present it, otherwise your just spewing more unsubstantiated hogwash.

        You wrote: “the money provided by the state of Rhode Island is not insignificant, and is designed (at least in Curt Schilling’s head) as a means to keep his company solvent”. You’re begging the question. You assume you know what’s in Curt Schilling’s head.

      • jwbiii - May 29, 2012 at 7:06 PM

        protius, As you do not seem to be clever enough to do this for yourself, which makes you a fully qualified. . . well never mind:

        http://38pitches.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/cant-help-but-love-this/

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 7:29 PM

        Is it your contention that an Internet comments section should run like a Harvard vs. Yale debate club meeting? That’s nuts. Curt Schilling has told us what’s in his head. Get off your ass (or sit down on it) and find out for yourself. Also, feel free to take Robert’s Rules of Order and cram it. (and to head you off, I know that Robert’s Rules of Order aren’t applicable to formal debate)

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM

        Common Man,

        Are you running for the Asshole of the Blog award? You win, hands down. Jwbiii is a distant second.

        Do you always argue from the extreme? I didn’t say that this comments section should be run like the Harvard debate team. I asked that I have the same information that you have so that we can discuss that information on equal terms. Are you saying that you don’t understand what I mean by having the same information? Are you really that stupid?

        Feel free to take your head out of your ass and stop talking shit like a 14 year old, and start talking facts like an adult. Do you think you can do that?

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM

        Jwbiii,

        Since you don’t seem clever enough to wipe your ass without getting shit on your fingers, I’ll explain why citing your sources upon request is important.

        I don’t know where you or the jerk wad got his info from, so if I want to discuss something with him, and I want to have the exact same information, then I need to know where he got his info from. Do you understand now? Have I cleared that up for you, ass-wipe?

        BTW, you are a king sized moron. I asked for specific information about how the money from the state of Rhode Island effected Schilling’s thinking. You gave me general information about his over all philosophy. Apparently you aren’t clever enough to understand English.

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 9:17 PM

        You’re the one appealing to “the commonly accepted, informal rules of debate and discussion,” protius. Not me. Again, it’s not my responsibility to use my time to do research for you. But now you’ve gotten away from the actual argument.

      • cur68 - May 29, 2012 at 9:33 PM

        Fellas, I don’t why you bother with this jackass, protius. Stop using logic and stuff. He’s an intellectual lightweight who fancies he’s a genius. Just ignore the idiot and he’ll go away.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM

        Common Man,

        Are you really so reading comprehension challenged that you keep repeating the same mistake over and over again?

        I’m not asking you to do research for me. Just tell me where you got your information. Otherwise, it’s just your subjective hogwash against someone else’s. Tell me why you’re more credible then the next guy.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM

        Cur, you’re pathetic.

        Now you’re intruding on discussions begging for attention. Are you jealous? Seems like you’re the idiot here. Why don’t you go play with your squash.

      • samuellsamson - Jun 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM

        He told you where he got it — Google.

        It’s funny how you accuse others of having poor reading comprehension. Having just waded through all these comments, you’re the one displaying his own lack in this area. It’s also funny you’re calling him “The Asshole of the Blog”, and for exactly the same reason. Take that plank out of your eye and maybe we can talk.

  13. sincitybonobo - May 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM

    Wow. The state of RI gives this blowhard $49 million in loan guarantees for a company that has no track record of success and the reason for 38 Studios’ failure, according to Schilling, is the state of RI. Even his conservative friends have to be cringing every time he opens his mouth. Raising capital is a tough endeavor for any business. 38 Studios got an undeserved gift of $49 million dollars in seed money and Schilling is still complaining. The lack of self-awareness is astounding. ESPN should drop him like a hot potato. Please, Mitch Williams, get a pass from your bosses at MLB Network and give us some reaction.

  14. whiteyandharry - May 29, 2012 at 3:41 PM

    The blowhard Schilling would be a perfect running mate for Romney!

  15. bbil2012 - May 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM

    According to Baseball- Reference this astute businessman and provider of jobs (laid off his entire workforce, and what happened to the houses?), made approxiamately 106 million dollars playing baseball.
    Unstash some of that and put your hand in your own pocket!

  16. protius - May 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM

    Mr. Calcaterra,

    You seem to be missing Schilling’s point, and making up points of your own to compensate for your misunderstanding.

    Schilling never said taking a loan from the government was a bad idea, you did; and he wasn’t complaining about the government being somewhat antagonistic. If anything, Schilling’s comments could best be characterized as calling the governor an idiot for cutting off his nose to spite his face.

    In your haste to chastise Mr. Schilling, you neglected to mention that the state of Rhode Island reneged on its promise to deliver valuable tax credits that I’m sure would have gone a long way to helping Mr. Schilling meet his financial obligations. Schilling also said that the Governor’s public statements caused one of his companies financial backers to pull out of a deal, and this was making it difficult for his company to meet its financial obligations going forward.

    Wouldn’t you agree that if the Governor’s public statements are going to cause financial instability, then Schilling is making a valid point, and your criticism is unfounded?

    • basedrum777 - May 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

      Wait wait wait, so your saying Schilling was a good enough businessman to convince a government to give him $75m and he proceeded to blow that money on prototypes and then has the nerve to criticize them for not throwing more good money after bad and for publically calling him out for his failure? Your statement implies that somehow he would be successful enough to make this business profitable but not good enough to convince anyone except the governor to give him the money for the business. They must not have been very sure about their investment if they decided to back out just because of a public comment by someone who had already lost $75m in this endevour. Do you think maybe they backed out because they figured that they would too lose their shirt in this boondoggle? Oh of course not because every conservative is good at business…haven’t you ever heard from conservative radio or news????

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 6:59 PM

        Basedrum,

        You seem to exist in some weird imaginary world where you envision people writing things that only you can read.

        You beg the question. I never said that Schilling was a good businessman. Go back and revisit my comments to get a grip on what I did write. My comments have nothing to do with anything that you wrote.

        And no, I don’t listen to conservative radio or news. I’m not politically conservative.

    • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

      While that may be true, protius, 38 Studios has gained a lot of attention because it’s Curt Schilling’s company. Once it became public knowledge that the company missed a payment, it’s fair game for Chafee to comment on it, especially to avoid the perception that the state was giving the company special treatment because of who runs it. Schilling’s presence causes additional scrutiny, and that’s on Curt, who cultivates and feeds that scrutiny with his media activities and newsmaking.

      Again, Schilling chose to accept government loans/tax breaks, and should have known about the additional responsibilities and burdens that come attached to that money.

      And while Schilling may feel like the government owes him additional money and discretion, and was foolish not to provide it, many others might laud the governor and the state for not throwing good money after bad, if indeed Schilling’s company was not viable.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

        Common Man,

        You are obfuscating my argument.

        You wrote: “Once it became public knowledge that the company missed a payment, its fair game for Chafee to comment on it”. It may have become “fair game” for the Governor to comment, but that was not my point. I claimed that “the Governor’s public statements caused one of his companies financial backers to pull out of a deal, and this was making it difficult for his company to meet its financial obligations going forward.”

        Your idea that it was acceptable for Governor Chafee to cause financial harm to Curt Schilling’s company in order to “avoid the perception that the state was giving his company special treatment” is absurd.

        Please explain to the readers why the Governor would make it more difficult for a company to meet its financial obligations to the state, just so the public could be reassured that Schilling wasn’t getting special treatment? It’s the public’s money he’s sworn to protect. Don’t you think the public would back the Governor in his effort to ensure that the loan was repaid? Chafee’s statements were a public relations blunder. I’ll ask you the same question I asked Mr. Calcaterra: Wouldn’t you agree that if the Governor’s public statements are going to cause financial instability, then Schilling is making a valid point, and your criticism is unfounded?

        You wrote: “Schilling’s presence causes additional scrutiny, and that’s on Curt, who cultivates and feeds that scrutiny with his media activities and newsmaking.” It is no secret that Curt Schilling is trading on his name, i.e., his brand, but apparently it is a secret to Governor Chafee who has done much to diminish that brand, and therefore it’s earning power.

        You wrote: “Again, Schilling chose to accept government loans/tax breaks, and should have known about the additional responsibilities and burdens that come attached to that money.” You’re begging the question. You’re assuming that Curt Schilling was unaware of his business responsibilities, and you’re assuming that government loans and tax breaks come with “additional responsibilities and burdens.”

        You wrote: “And while Schilling may feel like the government owes him additional money and discretion, and was foolish not to provide it, many others might laud the governor and the state for not throwing good money after bad, if indeed Schilling’s company was not viable.” You’re troubling the readers with an exercise in circular thinking.

        It could just as easily be said that the viability of Schilling’s company depended on the government of Rhode Island keeping its word, and allowing him some discretion, so that they would not be throwing good money after bad.

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM

        I’m obfuscating nothing. You’re assuming the company was viable based on the word of the company’s owner, unless you’ve seen its books. An owner who is accused of lying to his employees about reselling their homes in Massachusetts.

        Meanwhile, it’s certainly not in the Governor’s interest for the state to lose jobs. Even if the loan to Schilling’s company was made under a previous administration. Presumably then (and acknowledging we don’t have all the data), the Governor & his advisers concluded there was little chance of Schilling’s company succeeding, regardless of his comments. What’s more, if you believe that Chafee had an obligation to protect Schilling’s brand, and indeed Schilling’s company had little chance of repaying the state’s money, you are essentially asking for Chafee to lie to his shareholders (the citizens of Rhode Island) to prop up a failing company. Finally, if you don’t think that public perception isn’t a significant variable in the decision-making equations of public officials, you’re helplessly naive.

        Finally, I’m fairly certain that, once Schilling’s company failed to live up to the terms of its promises to the state of Rhode Island, the state was under no obligation to deliver on its end of the deal. What’s more, all we have is Schilling’s assurances that the money was promised and he was legally entitled to it. He hasn’t seemed terribly trustworthy, perhaps since you think it’s so important to bring citations to this discussion, you could point me toward something that spells that out.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 9:07 PM

        Common Man,

        Sorry, but you not only continue to obfuscate my point, but also you are misapplying it to an issue that I never brought up.

        You wrote: “You’re assuming the company was viable based on the word of the company’s owner, unless you’ve seen its books. An owner who is accused of lying to his employees about reselling their homes in Massachusetts.” I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re talking about here. We’re discussing the information contained in the above article. I don’t know anything about homes in Massachusetts, and frankly, I’m not interested. I don’t want to get involved in your philosophy of contempt and hate; I just want to discuss this one article. Do you think you can stay focused on that?

        You wrote: “if you believe that Chafee had an obligation to protect Schilling’s brand, and indeed Schilling’s company had little chance of repaying the state’s money, you are essentially asking for Chafee to lie to his shareholders (the citizens of Rhode Island) to prop up a failing company.”

        Once again you are begging the question. You are assuming that Schilling’s company had little chance of repaying the state’s money after already “acknowledging we don’t have all the data”. If you don’t have all the data to determine one way or the other if Schilling’s company had any chance of repaying the state’s money, then you have no reason to accuse me of asking Chafee to lie to his shareholders?

        You wrote: “Finally, if you don’t think that public perception isn’t a significant variable in the decision-making equations of public officials, you’re helplessly naive.” In case you missed it. In the post you’re responding to I wrote: “It is no secret that Curt Schilling is trading on his name, i.e., his brand, but apparently it is a secret to Governor Chafee who has done much to diminish that brand, and therefore it’s earning power.“ Public perception of Curt Schilling is based on his brand. Try to stay focused.

        You wrote: “I’m fairly certain that, once Schilling’s company failed to live up to the terms of its promises to the state of Rhode Island, the state was under no obligation to deliver on its end of the deal.” That doesn’t seem reasonable.

        To begin with, you don’t know this for sure, so why should I or the readers buy into your voodoo? Next, what if Schilling only failed to live up to one or two of the terms of its agreement with the state of Rhode Island, and continued to live up to the rest? Would Rhode Island still be obligated to deliver on its end of the deal? What if every company that does business with Rhode Island failed to live up to part of their agreement, how long would it take for Rhode Island to go bankrupt?

        You wrote: “He (Schilling) hasn’t seemed terribly trustworthy, perhaps since you think it’s so important to bring citations to this discussion, you could point me toward something that spells that out.” Sorry, but I don’t think he’s particularly trustworthy myself, so I wouldn’t know where to begin to look for background information about him.

        Actually, I don’t like Schilling at all; I just thought your arguments were bogus and should be challenged.

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 9:37 PM

        Look, this has gone on long enough. So, briefly, let me just say that our only assurances that 38 Studios was going to make it come from Schilling, whose credibility is highly questionable (particularly due to issues that were brought up outside of this article but are easy to find on this blog, if you take 2 seconds). It seems reasonable for the state to not deliver on its end of a deal if the provisions that Schilling’s company failed to comply with involve paying their loan back (and now not laying off employees without proper notice), and if the state’s involvement was likely to do nothing more than add to the losses suffered by its taxpayers in this investment.

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 10:45 PM

        Yes, I have wasted way to much time with you.

        Why would anyone believe anything you have to say on this subject.

        To me, you simply have no credibility. If the information isn’t contained in the article at the top of the page, then everything you write is pure unsubstantiated supposition.

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 10:59 PM

        Don’t forget, some of it is in articles you refuse to seek out for yourself! Have a good night!

  17. dremmel69 - May 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

    Let’s stick to actual baseball commentary please! There is a surplus of political sniping in the mainstream media. Now I have to put up with it in a sports site. Awesome! The frustrating thing is that you are so much better than that. Yet you take your pot shots because Schilling is an easy target. I hope you feel better. Can we get back to baseball now????

    • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 7:31 PM

      Sorry you were held down and forced to read this against your will, dremmel

  18. dremmel69 - May 29, 2012 at 7:59 PM

    I pity those that look for an argument in every syllable of every post. Yes, “common man “, I am referring to you. I was not “forced” to read the initial story. I apologize for expressing my opinion about the subject matter. I now realize that everyone must think exactly like you do. If they don’t, you must mock their opinions. Are you really that insecure?

    • protius - May 29, 2012 at 9:12 PM

      If you need to ask, then you’re not ready to know.

      He’s not insecure as much as he is anal retentive. Scroll up for my remarks re: broom handles.

      • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 9:19 PM

        Says the gentleman quoting debate rules and insisting on citations. Shall I make footnotes for you too, protius?

      • protius - May 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM

        Common Man,

        You want to be respected for your opinions, but you’re not willing to do much more then spew common, unsupported hogwash. Why should anyone lend you any credence? For all we know you’re making it up out of whole cloth.

        So now I get sarcastic with you about broom handles, and you get defensive.

      • samuellsamson - Jun 4, 2012 at 12:28 PM

        Where do you think your obsession with other men’s anuses started? Did you, perhaps go to boarding school, or were you a member of a specialist fraternity in college?

    • The Common Man - May 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM

      I just think it’s silly to make the decision to choose to read comments that are going to be political in nature, and then complain about all the political talk. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for that. There are dozens of other posts to delve into every day on this site.

      • Old Gator - May 29, 2012 at 11:29 PM

        I can’ think of a bigger waste of time than arguing with Protius. Watch him resort to juvenile, not to mention gratuitously nasty, ad hominem when he can’t win an argument. Same feral garbage he tried to run on cur68, another one of his betters, a few months back. Bile is his essential aspect. Don’t bother with him.

  19. dremmel69 - May 29, 2012 at 9:22 PM

    Really, NBC sports talk? My opinion gets ridiculed and that gets cleared. But when I respond it gets screened? What exactly is the criteria for post approval? My frustration is that baseball talk should be limited to baseball. Nevermind.

    • protius - May 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM

      In all fairness, I’ve never seen Mr. Calcaterra screen anyone or remove a post.

      Don’t feel bad for yourself. I’ve got a Canadian weirdo following me around from page to page looking for attention.

    • Old Gator - May 29, 2012 at 11:34 PM

      dremmel69: this blog has been wide open to a variety of other issues and discussions. Craig and the others who run it established an open format here a long time ago and most of us enjoy and take advantage of that leeway. Folks who don’t run or pay for it have a bad habit of showing up here to tell everyone else what should or shouldn’t be discussed, with their own tastes or opinions presented as the gold standard for everyone else to follow. It’s simple: if you want a one dimensional sports talk blog, there are plenty of others out there that fit that description. This isn’t one of them.

  20. brewcrewfan54 - May 30, 2012 at 12:47 AM

    I like turtles.

    • bbil2012 - May 30, 2012 at 9:39 AM

      Cool. Me too.
      I also like The Turtles.

  21. oldnumero7 - May 30, 2012 at 1:33 AM

    HOLY JESUS FUDGE you dudes are insane. Allow me to step in with unbiased scoring:

    Common Man/Gator: Win
    Proctolius: Loss
    Everyone else: Push

  22. Chris Fiorentino - May 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

    It was pretty fun to read the comments in this thread. At the end of the day, there really is only one thing that Proteus either forgot or simply never knew. The HBT commenters section is about 95% left-leaning. The 95% may be a little low actually.

    Now, that’s not to say I agree with you, Proteus…I do not. I think Schilling is very slimy here. You choose to give him the benefit of the doubt, and, for some ridiculous reason, only want debate on this one article instead of the entire history of 38 Studios.

    But if you actually thought that Curt Schilling, who exemplifies just about everything that the commenters of HBT hate, you were very sadly mistaken. Curt Schilling could have saved the guy’s life using the Heimlich maneuver like Frazier did, and the commenters here would have bashed him for allowing the guy to pick up his check. Curt Schilling could have found George Brett’s dog and returned him to Brett’s family, and the commenters here would have said he did it for the media attention. The only 2 people in America today more hated by the commenters of HBT is Frank McCourt and President George W. Bush. That’s it. That’s the list.

    • Utley's Hair - May 30, 2012 at 10:55 PM

      Chris, I have given Schilling credit before due to his work for autism awareness. And you forgot to mention Cheney and Rove on that list of demons.

    • samuellsamson - Jun 4, 2012 at 1:42 PM

      I’m a Red Sox fan. He was one of the 25. His work raising money for and awareness of autism, skin cancer and ALS are to be applauded. I also work as a sports journalist so I can appreciate the added value of his mouthiness, even where I disagree with him.

      But I think a lot of people — love him, like him, hate him or tolerate him — feel there’s something here that smacks of hypocrisy. Given his previous positions, I doubt he’d have been blogging in support of another company in the same position. And by “previous positions” I mean things like reblogging Ann Coulter’s “It really is not that complicated, I just don’t understand HOW people don’t grasp the concept of ‘Free Market’, and why left alone, it WORKS!” (see http://38pitches.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/this-should-be-how-we-implement-legitimate-health-care/ for the Google-y challenged). Or perhaps this quote from an interview with WEEI sports radio where the Valley Advocate reports that Schilling said, “There can be no question our country is in the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes. …[I]t falls on us, the individuals, to find a way out of our own personal crisis.”

      Schilling was happy to take government tax breaks to move his company into a different state. Now the taxpayers of Rhode Island get screwed — as will the firefighters, police officers, teachers and so on who will lose their jobs in cost-cutting measures. It’s hard to see how any of this sits with his well-publicized hawkishness. And to imply the problem is being caused by the refusal of the new R.I. governor to throw good money after bad seems rather disingenuous. 38 Studios was asking Rhode Island for the added funds to repay the first installment to R.I. (among other things). The plan? To get another $8.4 million in film-tax credits, which it could then sell to other companies, and use the proceeds to stay afloat.

      Is any of the “hypocrisy” talk making sense, yet?

      • molliesdad - Jun 4, 2012 at 8:30 PM

        Thank God for Samuelsamuellson and a bit of common sense. Flaming liberals and right wing fanatics are using Craig’s blog to fight their battle of ideologies which has little to do with the issue at hand–that Schilling is simply a hypocrite. End of story.

    • stlouis1baseball - Jun 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM

      No shit Chris! I actually felt compelled to point it out but decided against it. And for what it’s worth…your 95% is low (in my opionion).
      Believe me…I consider myself part of the 2% to the right! Hahaha!
      But I still like you guys. Even if you are a bunch of guilt ridden white dudes.
      Hahaha!

  23. flyerscup2010 - Jun 3, 2012 at 6:28 AM

    Can’t tell if protius is actually Curt Schilling or just a Republican

  24. ncphilliesguy - Jun 5, 2012 at 9:42 AM

    My father knows Curt. He is not a bad guy, just not the sharpest knife in the drawer and a little obnoxious. But he is a family man, and has done a lot of good for the charities he is interested in. I think maybe Craig and some of you should lay off, look in the mirror, and do something nice for someone.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Cabrera (4244)
  2. W. Myers (3305)
  3. M. Kemp (2910)
  4. W. Miley (2449)
  5. C. Headley (2384)
  1. M. Morse (2380)
  2. J. Lester (2339)
  3. M. Scherzer (2028)
  4. J. Upton (1990)
  5. C. Hamels (1940)