Friday, March 30, 2007
I was truly astounded by the answers to questions five and eight (I answered eight correctly). Let me say this about the answer to eight, it does say much about the arrogance of our government leaders to think the number quoted is sufficient.
Though in Jessica McBride’s jaundiced eyes, it’s probably too much. Btw: Last night on her show she advocated for first use of our nuclear arsenal vs. Iran. I believe her response was, “I can live with this.”
She was shallow as a liberal, she's downright scary as a wing-nut.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The 24-year-old Milwaukee man who admitted killing a college student and Jimmy John's delivery driver last fall pleaded guilty today to felonies that carry a maximum possible sentence of 263 years in prison.
Prosecutors agreed to reduce the first-degree intentional homicide charge against Michael R. Green, of the 2000 block of S. 16th St., to first-degree reckless homicide in exchange for Green pleading guilty to shooting Joseph Munz, 21, to death while Munz was delivering food in the Riverwest neighborhood Oct. 10.
Green also pleaded guilty to nine other felony counts, mostly relating to a string of armed robberies he admitted to police, and prosecutors agreed to recommend he spend 60 years in prison.
Speaking of wing-nuts … they must collaborate on their own internal SE Wiscosnin talking points memos. This non-story happened some time ago. It was published in Frontline Pravda, er Milwaukee ... you know, UWM's version of Faux News on-line. The one produced by Jessica McBride, who also happens to be responsible for all content. Nothing like teaching the kiddies how not to think for themselves.
Anyway, the story, which was written ostensibly by Rebecca Kontowicz (though the style was strikingly sophomoric, like McBride's) had to do with some hoodlums, who happened to be black, wreaking havoc around the UWM campus. Ms Kontowicz complained that the JournalSentinel did not identify the hoodlums as black, thereby doing a disservice.
UPDATE: Well not really. The rest of this item disappeared ... probably my ineptitude. I was going to say that both Charlie Sykes and Patrick McIlheran linked to this article approvingly.
The problem with all this, which will never be answered ... did Kontowicz look to see if there were any instances where white lawbreakers were not identified by race, or are blacks the only ones she is concerned with? Hmmm. She's learning from the best race-baiters around.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Oh, my 11-year old boy, Ian, went on his first date. I won't post a picture of the twosome because I did not get permission for the girl. The dance was held for 4K through 6th grade kids ... to attend, a parent had to chaperone. I was the honored one and thoroughly enjoyed watching all the kids. Thye had a DJ and fun things for the kids to do. Ian and his date did not dance, but it was fun to watch as they made sugar castles (pixie stick stuff) together ... and in general had a good time together. At the end of the night I could tell that the young lady had a good time because she tried to kick Ian in the shin. True love.
Abby, meanwhile, is quite the little 5K genius, or so her teacher implies. She loves school and actually creates her own homework when she gets home, just like her big brother.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Wow, Rush! Are you surprised that you found an LA Times editorialist who is only slightly less racist than you are?
The "Magic Negro" is a denigrating term for a two dimensional character so often used in film stories. He is never allowed to be a "real" person with fears, weaknesses, psychological complexities or even much of a personal history. He has counter parts in the "Magic Asian Master" and the "Magic Gay Man".
If you wish to see a form rebellion against the "Magic Negro", watch films in which Denzel Washington wanted to be a part. He's made a career out of avoiding playing the "Magic Negro", routinely choosing instead rather complex characters, some with extraordinary personal flaws like homophobia, alcoholism and even sublimated socipathology.
Ehrenstein, of course, confuses film story lines with real life. What he perceives to be some sort of "mystification" of Barack Obama is racist in its perception already. Obama is not an angry, black man shouting colorful speeches about civil rights. He's a polished son of academia who rose to the position of United States Senator - not social issue gadfly.
As Chris Rock would mock about what was so often coined about Colin Powell "What do you EXPECT the man to sound like???"
It's Ehrenstein who has the problem of seeing Barack Obama as "real", not the Dem voters supportive of his candidacy.
And here you come, Rush, gleefully happy that someone you think is "on the left" (BTW, Would that be because of Ehrenstein's previous columns, his paper or his surname? Perhaps all three?), legitimizing your repeat of "Magic Negro" like a three year old who has learned a new "bad word" to gain attention from his parents.
You and your grazing herd will never quite understand the CRITIQUE inherent in the creation of the "Magic Negro" character in story lines and how inherently OFFENSIVE a character he is. All you want is the legitimacy to scream what you think is an offensive, racism term - because you needed some "leftist" permission to do so.
So scream it all you want to your beer-swilling, dashboard fist pounding, insecure legions. Barack Obama and his supporters aren't paying attention to either YOU or the soft bigotry contained in Ehrenstein's column.
Those who pay attention to racist stereotypes in American media were already well aware that "Hollywood" ain't exactly a factory in which true social equality dreams are made. Only you people look to "Hollywood" as some representation of "liberal" thought.
Are you SURE it's not about the surnames, Rush?
JCW INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a Tekky Toys, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOVELTY, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Before MANION, WOOD, and EVANS, Circuit Judges. WOOD, Circuit Judge.
Meet Pull My Finger® Fred. He is a white, middle-aged, overweight man with black hair and a receding hairline, sitting in an armchair wearing a white tank top and blue pants. Fred is a plush doll and when one squeezes Fred’s extended finger on his right hand, he farts. He also makes somewhat crude, somewhat funny statements about the bodily noises he emits, such as “Did somebody step on a duck?” or “Silent but deadly.”
Fartman could be Fred’s twin. Fartman, also a plush doll, is a white, middle-aged, overweight man with black hair and a receding hairline, sitting in an armchair wearing a white tank top and blue pants. Fartman (as his name suggests) also farts when one squeezes his extended finger; he too cracks jokes about the bodily function.
Two of Fartman’s seven jokes are the same as two of the 10 spoken by Fred. Needless to say, Tekky Toys, which manufactures Fred, was not happy when Novelty, Inc., began producing Fartman, nor about Novelty’s production of a farting Santa doll sold under the name Pull-My- Finger Santa. Tekky sued for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition and eventually won on all claims.
The district court awarded $116,000 based on lost profits resulting from the copyright infringement, $125,000 in lost profits attributable to trademark infringement, and $50,000 in punitive damages based on state unfair competition law. The district court then awarded Tekky $575,099.82 in attorneys’ fees.
On appeal, Novelty offers a number of arguments for why it should not be held liable for copyright infringement, argues that Illinois’s punitive damages remedy for unfair competition is preempted by federal law, and contends that the attorneys’ fees awarded by the district court should have been capped according to Tekky’s contingent-fee arrangement with its attorneys.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Somewhat to our surprise, it turns out that there is a niche market for farting dolls, and it is quite lucrative.
Having said that, another prediction is coming true that the wing-nuts would be jumping all over this. Charlie Sykes used the phrase “well-coordinated” four times during the short amount of time I actually was able to listen this morning … this phrase obviously designed to give the impression that this kind of behavior is breaking out all over the country in perfect synchronicity. It’s not, by the way.
What is really well-coordinated is the constant assault of the right-wing noise machine (and their blogger sycophants) as they spread the verbal equivalent of human feces on the airwaves.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Four Years Ago
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Four years ago today, coalition forces launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to remove Saddam Hussein from power. They did so to eliminate the threat his regime posed to the Middle East and to the world. Coalition forces carried out that mission with great courage and skill…
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq ?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq ?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? A: That's because the weapons were so well hidden.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it ok to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is a Communist country.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being Capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become Capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like in China?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein came to power through military coups, so they're not really legitimate leaders anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in theUnited States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamists who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women too.
Q: Didn't the Bush Administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people ware caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's ok with us if radical Islamist fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic bodycovering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia .
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan .
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the Mujahedeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the evil Communist empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and Capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets, I mean, the Russians, are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq , so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to re-name French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always re-name foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah, for a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yes, but we looked the other way, to show him we were his friends.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable and go to sleep. Good night.
Good night, Daddy.
Monday, March 12, 2007
1) Gingrich marries his high school teacher, Jackie, who was seven years his senior.
2) Jackie puts Gingrich through college and she works hard to get him elected to the House in 1978 (Gingrich won partly because his campaign claimed that his Democratic opponent would neglect her family if elected -- at that time it was common knowledge that Gingrich was straying).
3) Shortly after being elected, Gingrich separated from his wife -- announcing the separation in the hospital room where Jackie was recovering from cancer surgery (the divorce was final in 1981); Jackie Gingrich and her children had to depend on alms from her church because Gingrich didn't pay any child support.
4) Six months after the divorce, Gingrich, then 38, married Marianne Ginther, 30.
5) "In May 1999, however, Gingrich  called Marianne  at her mother's home. After wishing the 84-year-old matriarch happy birthday, he told Marianne that he wanted a divorce." This was eight months after Marianne was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
6) In 2000, Gingrich, 57, married ex-congressional aide Callista Bisek, 34 (kind of like an intern ... my comment), with whom he was having a relationship while married to Marianne.
Bill Clinton was wrong to philander about, and he should have had more sense than to fool around with an intern. But two things need to be said: Clinton’s perjury had to do with being reticent about admitting a sexual tryst … hardly something that would bring down a nation, and, truthfully, it was just an attempt to smear and embarrass Clinton. Conservatives should really look at themselves before making their stupid claims of hatred of Bush.
Nothing Bill Clinton did compares in banality and pure evil than what Gingrich did to his women. The man is a pig.
Friday, March 9, 2007
More from my Mother. She's so cool.
The patient refused autopsy.
The patient has no previous history of suicides.
Patient has left white blood cells at another hospital.
Note: Patient here recovering from forehead cut.
Patient became very angry when given an enema by mistake.
Patient has chest pain if she lies on her left side for over a year.
On the second day the knee was better, and on the third day it disappeared.
The patient is tearful and crying constantly. She also appears to be depressed.
The patient has been depressed since she began seeing me in 1993.
Discharge status: Alive but without permission.
Healthy appearing decrepit 69-year old male, mentally alert but forgetful.
Patient had waffles for breakfast and anorexia for lunch.
She is numb from her toes down.
While in ER, she was examined, x-rated and sent home.
The skin was moist and dry.
Occasional, constant infrequent headaches.
Patient was alert and unresponsive.
Rectal examination revealed a normal size thyroid.
She stated that she had been constipated for most of her life, until she got a divorce.
I saw your patient today, who is still under our car for physical therapy.
The lab test indicated abnormal lover function.
Skin: Somewhat pale but present.
Patient has two teenage children, but no other abnormalities.
My good friend and blogging buddy, James Wigderson, author of Wigderson Library and Pub (which is a very fine blog) annoyed me yesterday and today (perhaps it was his intention) with his rant about the right needing to reach for a higher standard … a standard higher than liberal offensive speech … and his off-handed defense of Newt Gingrich's indiscretions.
I was flabbergasted at both the audacity and sagaciousness of his posts. Flabbergasted at the audacity because, other than some punks out in blogger land who write some truly offensive things about the President, who say offensive things about the vice president … you know, ordinary citizens who admittedly have the IQs of mice … it’s conservatives who dominate the mean-spirited end of the free speech spectrum. I’ve documented the notorious members of this brigade of hate, so I will not repeat myself.
But, I’m also flabbergasted at his sagaciousness because … well, James would be a great speech writer. I can see the less informed members of the conservative coalition (most of them) nodding their heads in unison at his seemingly convincing words.
Tom Tomorrow covers the Coulter phenomenon well … and the fact that she does not get it. No matter how many times James and others decry Coulter, the fact is a vast majority of conservatives enjoy and support her filthy mouthings.
The mouth that roared
Coulter explains her harmless, inoffensive little joke:
Right and I suspect everyone listening to your show knows about that. I mean, I know — well, I guess Pat is out in America now; you’re primarily in New York City. I give a lot of speeches out in America, I frequently visit America, and Americans are pretty freaked out about somebody going to rehab for using a word, and that’s of course what I was referring to. And I don’t think there’s anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag. It’s a schoolyard taunt. It means — it means wussy. It means, you know, Hillary giving a speech in a fake Southern drawl — that’s faggy. A trial lawyer who weeps before juries is faggy. Lifetime-type TV, faggy. Everyone understood I was not literally calling — well, I was not calling — well, for one thing, I wasn’t calling John Edwards anything. That was the whole point. I couldn’t talk about him, his life’s work, his appeasement policies, his wimpiness on foreign policy, because that word is out of bounds. So, in point of fact, I called John Edwards nothing. I said I couldn’t even discuss him because using any variation of that totally excellent word would send me into rehab.
This is, of course, the woman who “jokes” about murdering New York Times reporters en masse and assassinating Supreme Court judges and Democratic Presidents. Nonetheless, I find this defense extraordinary. Up until last week, there wasn’t a person in this country who would have argued that “faggot” is just a harmless word, offensive to no one. To say that it’s just a “schoolyard taunt” — well, I spent my middle school years in the south at the height of the integration battles (America being the place where I grew up and live today, unlike Ann, who apparently views it as a foreign land she sometimes has to visit). There were plenty of “schoolyard taunts” in those days targeted toward race, far beyond the “n” word. By Ann’s logic, she should be free to use any of them in discussing Barack Obama, because they were nothing more than harmless “taunts.” Why, if she phrased the joke properly — “I can’t call Obama a —— because it would be sooooo politically incorrect, ha ha ha!” — she could even claim that she hadn’t called him anything at all.
I invite her to try.
… it’s also sad that Ann, allegedly a professional writer, can’t think of a single way to discuss her negative feelings toward a presidential candidate without using a term that is considered hateful and offensive by most rational people. Maybe she should consider another line of work.
Lastly, James posts that the media still doesn’t get it about the Clinton impeachment. I’ve already commented at James’ site … the problem is James doesn’t get it. It really is about hypocrisy … James, and Gingrich, once again use that tried and true argument called equivalency in an attempt to sway the meager minds of their audience, however, the fact is Gingrich had an affair. For him to claim to be an authority on what is moral and a value is a travesty. For him to sit in judgment of Bill Clinton is ridiculous. For James to ignore it and to twist it in a different direction is a travesty, too.
Gotta love the christian conservatives. Now Newt will be forgiven in the eyes of god and all will be good.
Good luck, good health for the little one and a speedy recovery to Kelly.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
A sperm speciment was requested of an 85-year-old man by his doctor to conduct a sperm count as part of the man's physical exam. The doctor gave the man a jar and said, "Take this jar home and bring back a semen sample tomorrow."
The next day the 85-year-old man reappeared at the doctor's office and gave him the jar, which was as clean and empty as the previous day. The doctor asked what happened and the man explained: "Well, doc, it's like this ... first I tried with my right hand, but nothing happened. Then I tried with my left hand, but still nothing. Then I asked my wife for help. She tried with her right hand, then with her left, still nothing. She tried with her mouth, first with the teeth in, then with her teeth out, still nothing. We even called up Arleen, the lady next door and she tried, too. First she tried with both hands, then an armpit. She even tried squeezin' it between her knees, but still nothing."
The doctor was shocked. "You asked your neighbor!?!?"
The old man replied, "Yep. None of us could get the jar open."
(But, what are friends for?)
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Regarding Ann Coulter: Mickey is right, Ann Coulter does does not represent conservatism. However, she and mickey do represent its uglier side.
Steve-zero, there is a difference between people of character like Owen, and liberal ass hats like you. Owen examines his moral conscience and chooses to suipport or not support someone based on their acts words and deeds Mental midgets like you choose your leaders based on their ideology. Ann Coulter is correct most of the time, but her “bile” as you call it, has lost her the modicum of support she recieved from the likes of Owen. Bill Clinton is a rapist, you have no problem with that. Republicans and conservatives take out their trash. Liberals get in bed with theirs. Zero, you morally bankrupt libs have a KKK WIZARD and TED KENNEDY serving you nicely. Then there’s William Jefferson.
Monday, March 5, 2007
He says in a blog post titled “Go Take a Nap, Ms. Coulter,” that he too has a problem with her use of the word “faggot” recently during a convention of conservative activists … of course only after seeing that others had made negative comments about her.
He hastens to add that he has found her to be a good writer, “… is often hilarious and can express a political argument incisively.” She can also be mean at times, he’s winked, but mostly she’s brilliant he’s opined, too.
I suppose these accounts, taken from a Slate Magazine article, are brilliant examples of her wittiness.
"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."—Rivera Live, Aug. 2, 1999
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' "—Hannity & Colmes, June 20, 2001
The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"—syndicated column, Oct. 29, 1999
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."—MSNBC, Oct. 11, 1997
"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."—Salon.com, Nov. 16, 2000
"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."—Hannity & Colmes, Aug. 17, 1999
"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."—MSNBC, Feb. 8, 1997
McIlheran provides two examples of left-wing hilarity, as though that’s enough to make up for the army of talk radio, television, and blogger numskulls employed by the Rovian autocracy. His continued employment is another reason that, despite repeated calls for me to renew my subscription, I refuse to do so, relying instead on the free version on-line.
Though truth be told, I won’t be troubled if that version becomes pay-per-view. There’s are better places to receive movie time information (though I do like their baseball coverage ... Drew Olsen and Tom Haudricourt are top-notch).
Thursday, March 1, 2007
These type of leagues are nothing like the rotisserie leagues that are all the rage. We don’t acquire players who then accumulate points for things such as stolen bases, strikeouts, wins, losses, etc. Strat-0-Matic actually number crunches the production of a player from the previous year … batting, on base average, slugging, outfield arm and accuracy, hold ability by pitchers, defense and defensive range, and much, much more are examined, eventually resulting in a very realistic replaying ability. Albert Pujols is going to be very Albert Pujols-like in Strat-0-Matic.
Anyway, about seven years ago, I joined a new, more advanced league called BRASS League (Bloomington Rotisserie and Strat-0-Matic Society). The role of general manager was further enhanced in this game with salary structures and free agency added. Now, I had to not only field a team and play against others, I had to pay my players, as well.
Two nights ago, my current team, the Cream City Pirates, culminated its most successful BRASS season by defeating the Montreal Sunsets to advance to the World Series. In seven years, my teams have won three division titles, but never advanced this far. The game itself was played face-to-face … over the Internet. Strat has come a long way, baby. Below is the recap of what was truly a remarkable game. Enjoy.
Derek Jeter Refused to Lose
Derek Jeter simply refused to allow Cream City to lose game six of its prize fight with the Montreal Sunsets. Because of his heroics, the Cream City Pirates await the winner of the Gold League playoffs after winning the Silver League championship series four games to two.
Cream City had lost the previous game to Johann Santana 8-0 … a game in which the slumbering Montreal bats finally game to life. For four games, Cream City’s pitching staff, especially its bullpen, had shut down the vaunted Sunsets attack. Now, trailing 3-2 in the series, Daniel Valois’ crew needed only to win game six to force a deciding game … one which would feature Roger Clemens and his supernatural card on the mound.
The game started out like game five. A one-out single by Mark Ellis was followed by a titanic shot by Chipper Jones to put the Sunsets up 2-0. Still reeling from that shot, starter John Patterson fed Travis Hafner a gopher that Hafner deposited into the seats in deep, deep right center field. Now trailing 3-0, the Pirates fans were stunned and silent (as was their stricken manager).
But not for long.
Kenny Lofton led off with a sharp single to right. Lofton was unable to get a good lead, but his antics at first were enough to distract Montreal starter, Carlos Zambrano, into issuing a free pass to Derek Jeter. After a fly out by Brian Roberts, Larry Walker strode to the plate and first ball hitting, lashed a double into the right field corner. By the time Bobby Abreu could retrieve the ball two runs had crossed the plate. Richie Sexson followed with a double off the wall in left center, just eluding the glove of Jonny Gomes and the score was tied.
Patterson and Zambrano settled down until the top of the fifth. David DeJesus led off with a double. After a ground out by Greg Zaun, Bobby Abreu was intentionally walked to face Mark Ellis. Hopes for a double play ball were foiled when Ellis dropped a blooper just beyond second basemen Brian Robert’s reach into right field and Montreal regained the lead 4-3.
Chipper Jones followed with a walk to load the bases. Sensing trouble, Cream City manager, Tim Rock, brought in Justin Speier to face Travis Hafner. Speier’s specialty is facing lefties with his reverse card and true to form, he struck Hafner out. Rock then brought on Bronson Arroyo, the Pirate’s long relief man for the series. The strategy backfired though when Gomes laced a single to left scoring two. Once again the Cream City faithful were silent (the Pirate’s manager cutting off an expletive deleted just in time).
In the bottom of the sixth, Richie Sexson gave the crowd something to cheer for with a solo shot to deep left field off Zambrano. Still, the Pirates trailed 6-4 after six complete.
In the bottom of the seventh, Derek Jeter decided to take matters into his own hands. Still trailing by two, Lofton got on with another of his patented singles to right. Once again, though unable to get a lead, he was able to distract Zambrano into throwing a wild pitch. With Lofton dancing at second, Zambrano turned to face Jeter and threw him a fat one right down the middle. Jeter took him deep to left center. The crowd roared its approval … the game was tied … there was hope yet in Sudsville.
Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell Jonny Gomes this was supposed to be Cream City’s day because he promptly led off the top of the eighth with a shot to left that just skipped over Hideki Matsui’s outstretched glove. Suddenly, the Pirates trailed again and time was running out.
The Pirates were retired meekly in the eighth inning, a two-out Ichiro Suzuki single wasted. The Sunsets were eliminated in the ninth.
Derek Jeter strode to the plate in the bottom of the ninth to lead off, facing Jason Isringhausen, who had come on with two-outs in the bottom of the seventh. Jeter wasted no time. On a 2-1 pitch, Jeter reached out and poked a ball to left that just kept going and going and going as though it were destined for greatness… dropping into the fourth row in left center field for a game tying home run. The crowd went berserk celebrating Jeter’s second home run of the game (the Pirates’ manager almost fell out of his chair). The Pirates failed to push anything else across and so the game continued to the tenth inning.
J. D. Drew led off the inning with a double to center off Neal Cotts. However, Cotts was up to the task and induced easy outs from the next three batters.
The stage was set.
Brandon Inge led off with a double to center off Hector Carrasco. Humberto Cota grounded out to second, allowing Inge to move to third. Montreal decided to pitch to Suzuki with the infield in and that strategy worked when Suzuki lined out to Ellis for the second out.
Now, Sunsets manager Daniel Valois faced a choice. Running out of pitchers, he decided to walk the red-hot lefty, Lofton, to pitch to Derek Jeter … a much more favorable match-up for the right-handed Carrasco.
Junior Spivey came on to pinch run for Inge and the Pirates decided to try some trickery. Lofton took off, hoping that the ball would come to second, giving Spivey a chance to steal home. But the Sunset foiled that by holding the ball. It was up to Jeter.
In hindsight, who could have known this was Derek Jeter’s day. The percentages favored the moves Valois made. It didn’t matter. Jeter took the pitch from Carrasco and sent it deep into the left field seats for a walk-off three-run home run, his third of the game. Bedlam ensued (imaginary and real).
The Pirates were going to the World Series.