The Worst Major League Baseball Game Ever

 

Wednesday, April 29, 2015; the Chicago White Sox vs.
the Baltimore Orioles at Oriole Park at Camden Yards. a game that the Orioles defeated the White Sox, 8-2 and the attendance was 0.
Zero, zip, no one, nothing, nada.


 

Images of an empty Oriole Park at Camden Yards in yesterday's

White Sox-Orioles baseball game.

 

Yes, in what has to be the worst decision of the new Major League Baseball commissioner, Rob Manfred, MLB decided that the game would be played in Baltimore and that no fans would be admitted into Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

Keep in mind that this is due to the rioting going on Monday evening in Baltimore over the death in police custody of Freddie Gray. Already Monday's and Tuesday's games were cancelled. And there was the game played yesterday. And there was to be a series to be played in Baltimore between the Tampa Bay Rays and Orioles.

There were three much better solutions Mr. Manfred could have done.

One, move the game to Chicago. In fact when it became clear that there would be no game Monday and Tuesday, they could have moved to Chicago and played Tuesday night and Wednesday. Now the weekend series mentioned above will move from Baltimore to Tropicana Field in St. Petersberg, Florida.

Two, cancel the series completely and make up the three games throughout the regular season.

The third and toughest, I readily admit, is to have played the game and opened the stadium up to fans for free.

What?! Are you insane, Mr. RVFTLC?! Do you want a riot in a baseball stadium?!

Let me answer about a potential riot in a stadium.

Keep in mind that as of this writing, Baltimore is in the middle of a 10pm to 5am curfew. And the local police are supported by law enforcement throughout the state of Maryland. Even some from New Jersey. And of course there is the Maryland National Guard deployed throughout the city. So some of those forces could have been easily deployed throughout the Camden Yards area. Also, as of this season, all fans must pass through metal detectors similar to that at airports throughout the United States. Armed police and National Guard troops would not let the situation get out of control.

Well, how do you let these fans enter without chaos?
Easy.

The Orioles could have printed tickets as if it was for a game. Open all the stadium ticket booths and distribute accordingly. At the moment the national anthem ended, the ticket booth closes and that is all. Essentially a first come, first serve basis. They could have made huge, readable signs explaining how those who wanted to attend could do so. Also, they could have taken out a full-page ad in the local fish-wrap, The Sun.

I don't think that I am insane for suggesting a game go on in such treacherous conditions. I look at the possibility of a day of peace in a riot-torn city. That people could have a respite from the conditions that perpetuated the cancellation of games prior to yesterday.

One of the reasons I think that MLB took a cautious approach was because when the Orioles played on Saturday night, protesters began to harass fans leaving the game. Of course there was not a full-fledged riot at that moment and as such security was probably average for a Saturday night baseball game.

The other reason I think that fans should have been allowed to attend the game for free is because of the rantings of the Orioles' owner's son, John Angelos, on Twitter in regards to the whole situation in the city of Baltimore over the past 40 years.

Full disclosure is that John Angelos' father, Peter Angelos, is a well connected Democrat activist.

Since the game yesterday essentially made some money through advertisements and advanced ticket sales, it was essentially paid for. And since John Angelos made such a bold political statement, Peter Angelos could have sent a message of solidarity with his fan base.

But playing a game in an empty stadium sent a negative message of succumbing to thugs and essentially domestic terrorists. That they will play a game, a kid's game, but with no one in the ballpark. Not even in the summer after the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor, in 1942, did MLB cave to the forces of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. The games went on.

The fact that MLB and Mr. Manfred went along with this says that in the future, caution and fear of a possibility of violence will make this sport cower in a corner.

Remember the date, Wednesday, April 29, 2015.

Remember the teams, Chicago White Sox at Baltimore Orioles.

Remember the attendance, 0

Remember that it was the worst major league baseball game ever.



Birtherism: The Cancer That Won't Go Away

Oh I know that many people will suggest that birtherism, the belief that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is nothing but a bunch a crazy right-wingers wanting to delegitimize his presidency.
I'm here to tell you that in fact, birtherism is alive and well and involved with some announced and non-announced candidates for the Republican presidential nomination.
It is a cancer that will not go away.
Here are some of the names that the birthers are saying are "not qualified" to be president of the United States:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
Gov. Nikki Haley (R-South Carolina)
Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-Louisiana)
Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-Nevada)

Now two, Sens. Cruz and Rubio, are announced candidates. Gov. Haley is not going to run but could be a possible serious contender for vice-president. Same for Gov. Sandoval. Only Gov. Jindal will probably make a serious run at the Republican nomination.
I suppose that birthers will make a serious claim that there is nothing partisan about their zeal to make sure that all candidates and potential candidates meet the requirements for being president. But I do notice all do not exactly have WASPy-sounding names.
So what are the constitutional requirements for being a potential president?
It's right here in Article 2, section 1 and paragraph 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Pretty simple and straight forward, right? And since the current occupant of the White House was born in the then new state of Hawai'i in 1961 and his mother was a citizen of the United States, the first two requirements are met. And yes, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has lived in the United States for 14 years and was a bit north of 35  years old when elected.
So what is the beef of the birthers?
Since they can't, although some do, harp on the "real" birth certificate, the main thrust is the meaning of being a "natural born citizen". This is basically what the birthers say not only disqualifies the current occupant of the White House, but a slew of Republicans that want to replace him. One thing that this conveniently ignores is the 1790 Naturalization Act. As well as the 14th Amendment that not only expanded who could be a citizen, which at the time was very limited and essentially whites or Europeans only. Essentially, for the majority of birthers, the main problem for the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the aforementioned above is that while they may all have been born in the United States and or have at least one American citizen parent, both parents are not United States citizens and that should disqualify the Dear Leader, President Obama and the aforementioned above.
While the current birther movement gets all the publicity, this is nowhere near the first time a potential president's citizenship and or birth has been questioned. Of the nine mentioned in the link, only two became president and that would be Republican Chester A. Arthur and Democrat Barack H. Obama.
Why has the current birtherism been even given any credibility in the first place?
Well, it was not a Republican effort to discredit the Dear Leader, President Obama. In fact as the linked article points out, it was the Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign that decided to go for the jugular and throw the kitchen sink to discredit Mr. Obama. Here is a relevant point:
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008

And let's not forget that Team Hillary was, not one bit of doubt in my mind, behind this infamous photo of Mr. Obama in full Islamic garb.

Yet some fringe conservatives and or Republicans have kept this whole birtherism nonsense going and going. And now like a cancer kept at bay, birtherism is metastasizing way into the Republican field. And if one of those aforementioned above should become the Republican nominee, it will be a nagging enough diversion to keep the leftywhore media amused.
It is time to stop this birtherism right now. All the candidates, announced and unannounced are qualified to be potential presidents. Even Ted Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to an AMERICAN mother is qualified under the constitution and subsequent laws.
You know, there are actual and real issues that all candidates should be vetted on. Too many to list here. But where they were born and if they are "natural-born citizens" or not are not one of them.

Sen. Rubio Answers A Gotcha Question Correctly

One thing that Sen. Marco Rubio received grief for is when he delivered a response to one of the Dear Leader's endless indoctrination speeches State of the Union speeches and while still on the air, he picked up a bottle of water and took a swig to clear his throat.
It was as if Sen. Rubio was not human and could not get some dry throat giving a speech. I wrote a post on that here.
But Jorge Ramos from the Obama Spanish Television Network Univison asked a question of Sen. Rubio that you know not one Democrat will be asked.
Would you attend a friend's same-sex wedding?
OK, Mr. Ramos said gay, but I call it what it actually is. I thought my wedding was gay in the traditional meaning of the word. You know, happy. I don't think that in The Flintstones theme song when these words were sung, "we'll have a gay, old time" was meant in the modern sense.
Sen. Rubio said the right answer.
Yes, it is nuanced but the issue for those of us that support traditional marriage, especially in the religious sense, it is correct to say yes.  Here is the actual answer,

“How you treat a person that you care for and love is different from what your opinion is or what your faith teaches marriage should be.”

Now to some, the correct answer is no. Not a chance. Can't do it. As noted by Allahpundit in the link, the Rev. Pat Robertson of the 700 Club gave a pretty hard-line answer on this:

“You don’t agree with it. You’ve got to stand there and be a witness to it. By your attendance at the ceremony, you are agreeing with it … I just wouldn’t go. I would tell your child, ‘I love you but I cannot condone this. We will always love you but I don’t condone this activity."

I do not agree with the Rev. Robertson.
Let's say that a man-woman are getting married but not in the church. Say you are the son's parents and can't believe that all he was taught about marriage and it being part of God's plan was being thrown out the window. And let's throw in that the son is not marrying a Christian but a Muslim woman. Yet they have agreed to raise their potential children Christian. But since she does not want to convert as she is a lapsed Muslim, the son thinks it is being hypocritical to marry in the church. Using the Rev. Robertson argument, attending such a wedding is a negatory. Nyet. Nien. Not a chance.
When we wade into these issues we have to look at them in a way in which one can have the view of Sen. Rubio, he does not support same-sex marriage and supports RFRA laws that allow Christian vendors that do not want to participate in a same-sex ceremony to have a defense.
I think where Sen. Rubio is with the answer that the love and friendship kinda tops the religious understanding that he has on the subject.
That is where most Americans are on this subject, I believe.
Few if any people beyond the hard left and gay-rights activists would want to force any religious institution to perform a same-sex wedding. After all, in Judaism, Reform rabbis do perform same-sex marriages where they are permitted. In Mainline Protestant Christianity, The Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ also perform same-sex marriages. The Presbyterian Church USA is about to allow it as well. Within every aforementioned denomination there are a substantial number of holdouts and outright opponents to the rite. And of course the Roman Catholic church, all Orthodox churches, Evangelical Christians and fundamentalists are opposed to same-sex marriage.
At the end of the day, that is where I stand. My understanding of same-sex marriage is that there is no affirmation for it in the bible. There are a few admonishments but no direct "Thou shalt not marry man and man as man and woman" admonishment. More than likely the supreme court will rule that same-sex marriage will be the law of the land in all 50 states. Much like the court usurped the right of states and localities to have abortion laws and or regulations, the same will be done here. If not now, at some point.
That does not mean there will not be opposition. I will oppose it being forced on religious institutions. The fact is since not all of Christianity is on the same page on the issue, as is Judaism and probably Islam in the United States, there are plenty of churches, temples and mosques that would perform such ceremonies without the force of government.
And like Allahpundit asked, is there a conservative answer on the subject, I don't think there is a universally acceptable one when, as I noted, Christianity is not all together on the subject. I think that there is an honest and nuanced one. The answer that Sen. Rubio gave fits that category and showed that he will not be derailed by these kind of gotcha questions. Questions designed to make a candidate look bad by his or her answer. It won't please absolutionists, but it will make those that a Sen. Rubio have to reach out to, independents, take a look at where a person that maybe president stands on a particularly touchy subject.
And unlike the Dear Leader, President Obama, there is nothing in Sen. Rubio's public history to suggest that this is going to come back to haunt him. Like when then candidate for Illinois state senate, Barack Obama answered that he favored same-sex marriage. When running for senate and president, he clearly lied and only changed to his real position when it was deemed to not hurt his reelection chances.
A nuanced yet principled answer is probably the best we should expect from any politician and Sen. Rubio showed how it was done.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO IS IN THE 2016 GOP RACE!

Not exactly the world's best kept secret, but Florida senator Marco Rubio is officially a candidate for the Republican nomination for president as announced earlier today in his hometown of Miami, Florida.
Anyone who is a regular reader of this blog knows that I have been on the Rubio bandwagon since he launched his seemingly quiotix run against the then Republican Charlie Christ in 2009. The establishment GOP rallied behind Mr. Christ, who for now claims to be a Democrat, as the only candidate who could defeat any Democrat.
Where have we heard such things before?!
You can watch Sen. Rubio's announcement right here:

And Sen. Rubio, more than anyone else who has formally announced has the most to lose as he is giving up his Florida senate seat to run for president. Already shows that he is someone that is willing to take a risk. The senate seat probably was his for reelection. Sen Ted Cruz is not up for reelection until 2018. Sen. Rand Paul was able to get a change in Kentucky law so he could both run for president and his senate seat, also up in 2016.  But we will have to see how that turns out.
Yes, I know the most obvious thought out there is that why would another first-term senator, like Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Kt.) make a run after in one way or another have used the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, inexperience (also a first-term senator).
The only defense, and I admit that it is lame but true.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, set the bar low enough that others could do what he did. Thus the three current GOP announced presidential candidates are first-term senators. All have positives and negatives. But Sen. Rubio has the least negatives over Sens. Cruz and Paul.
Rather than bore you with such details at this writing, let me just get you to this link to Five Thirty Eight and this article by Harry Enten as to the fact that the Republicans have a serious contender for the nomination in Sen. Rubio.
Some highlights from the speech, courtesy of Bloomberg News.

For almost all of human history, power and wealth belonged only to a select few. Most people who have ever lived were trapped by the circumstances of their birth, destined to live the life their parents had. But America is different. Here, we are the children and grandchildren of people who refused to accept this.
Both of my parents were born to poor families in Cuba. After his mother died when he was nine, my father left school to go work. My mother was one of seven girls raised by a disabled father who struggled to provide for his family.
When they were young, my parents had big dreams for themselves. But because they were not born into wealth or power, their future was destined to be defined by their past. So in 1956 they came here, to the one place on earth where the aspirations of people like them could be more than just dreams.
My father became a bartender. My mother a cashier, a maid and a Kmart stock clerk. They never made it big. But they were successful. Two immigrants with little money or education found stable jobs, owned a home, retired with security and gave all four of their children a life far better than their own.

A powerful personal story and a clear respect and love for America and what it offered not just his parents but their children, including Marco.

If we reform our tax code, reduce regulations, control spending, modernize our immigration laws and repeal and replace ObamaCare, the American people will create millions of better-paying modern jobs.

Short, to the point, concise. One thing that will bore the American people is an overly detailed plan explained in such fashion by the candidate. It is the general theme on which Sen. Rubio is basing his whole candidacy.

Just yesterday, a leader from yesterday began a campaign for President by promising to take us back to yesterday.
But yesterday is over, and we are never going back. We Americans are proud of our history, but our country has always been about the future. Before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of America.
We can’t do that by going back to the leaders and ideas of the past. We must change the decisions we are making by changing the people who are making them.

Yes, that is a direct hit at the presumptive and now official Democrat candidate, former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. And a little jab at potential Republican candidate, former Florida governor, Jeb Bush. And the following is a more direct jab on Mr. Bush:

My candidacy might seem improbable to some watching from abroad. In many countries, the highest office in the land is reserved for the rich and powerful. But I live in an exceptional country where even the son of a bartender and a maid can have the same dreams and the same future as those who come from power and privilege.

Although it is clear it is anti-Bush, it is another assault on the Clinton candidacy as well.
As I write this, I realize that there are some who will not forgive Sen. Rubio for trying to work with the so-called Gang of Eight in pursing so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. I can't fault him for the effort. But Sen. Rubio clearly realized that the so-called Gang of Eight had no desire and want of a strong border security aspect of the plan and he bailed out. A leader does sometimes make mistakes. This was a mistake and we should be glad that when it came down to voting on it, Sen. Rubio pulled his support and is going to pursue border security first, then what to do with the millions of illegal aliens here.
People underestimate Sen. Rubio at their own peril. Remember as I noted earlier, the whole of the GOP establishment in Washington and Florida were lining up behind Mr. Christ for the senate seat. When Mr. Christ lost the nomination to Mr. Rubio, a rather large margin of victory, the spoiled-sport Christ mounted an "independent" challenge in the general election and all that did was put the Democrat candidate, Kendrick Meek, in third place. Mr. Rubio almost won a three-way race with 50% of the vote.
Not bad for a candidate with no chance of even getting the GOP nomination.
And now, the giant killer, Marco Antonio Rubio, is officially in for the Republican nomination for president. Can Sen. Rubio kill some more GOP folks and be the 2016 presidential nominee? I think that is a very real possibility.

EASTER 2015

Alleluia! The Lord is risen indeed! Alleluia!
Thanks be to God! Alleluia! Alleluia!

The Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ according to Mark:

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

The Gospel of the Lord.
Praise be to thee, Lord Christ

Wishing you and yours a blessed Easter, 2015.

Hey College Kids, Don't Major In Economics In College Because You're A Hater Or Something

This is but another reason that it is even impossible to have a semi-reasonable discussion with a socialist liberal on pretty much any issue.
I get that to many college is supposed to be a certain kind of experience. You know, to open one up to a world of possibility. For someone to discover one's self. It can be, for many, a truly life changing experience.
For others, it is part of a career path. And some people will major in economics. And get an undergraduate degree in said subject.
But, according to Professor Lisa Wade, if you are an economics major and worse, understand economics, you are probably "anti-social". Which is probably code for just being a hater.
No, I am sorry to write, this is not a joke. This is based on an article she wrote, "Are Economic Majors Anti-Social?"
I mean, why read the rest of the article when she answers the question in the very first word?! Well, I read it so you don't have to.
Needless to say, Prof. Wade answers her question with a "Yep".
Now what does the esteemed Prof. Wade actually know about economics herself?
I will have to say very little to now knowledge of economics since she is a professor of sociology.
But right after her affirmative answer, Prof. Wade suggests that people who do take economics whether it be classes or as a major were already anti-social to begin with. And that once they are done, they are less likely to be generous (Re: wanting to give up hard-earned money to the government), don't want to share (again, they oppose socialism), specifically less generous to the needy (which seems to be a redundancy of not being generous in the first place) and more likely to lie, cheat and steal. And Prof. Wade links to this site that has studies to buttress her argument.
So Prof. Wade writes about a study by two economists, Yoram Bauman and Elaina Rose that cites how stingy that they are because they offer two examples of what they can donate and or financially support when they register for school. So what do they offer as two examples? Take a look.
WashPIRG (a left-leaning public interest group).
ATN (a non-partisan group that lobbies to reduce tuition rates).
What is missing here?
How about a conservative group? If there was a conservative group, would more econ majors support that or similar groups? Well, I don't know because they did not seem to include that third option.
So, if you are an econ major, because you don't want to financially support a left-wing "public interest group" or a supposed non-partisan group, you are anti-social! But if you are just taking econ classes and not majoring in econ, you're cool!
Awesome!
Choice of where one's money goes makes one anti-social.
What the study and or studies do not bother to do is some follow up. Such as where the econ majors ended up. What did they do beyond their employment such as what organizations they belong to and whether they financial support such organizations.
Nope, based on some flimsy studies at best, they make a harsh assumption that their natural "anti-social" tendencies make them more likely to end up being econ majors. And the further they pursue that degree, the more "anti-social" they become.
As noted in the post by Aurelius, giving money to liberal and or non-partisan groups does not make one a better person. What about giving to one's church, temple or mosque? What about giving time to a cause that is meaning to that person?
But of course sociologists do not have to really worry about the consequences of bad monetary investments. They judge one's proper social behavior as if they support leftist causes. Especially with money. The fact is that an econ major is going to be exposed to more than "neo-classical" economics as cited by Prof. Wade. As such they will be critically thinking of what has worked and what does not work. And that determines their attitude to any given group and what they are promoting.
So what is WashPIRG? Well, it's a typical left-wing group. Among the issues that they are all about include the overuse of anti-biotics at "factory" farms. Closing those pesky corporate tax loopholes. So-called 21st century transportation (that means walking, bikes and massive public transportation). Now yes, a person learning about economics and that includes economic theory is going to have some of their tuition money go to this group.
SMH* until I bleed!
And what about the ATN group?
Well, the acronym stood for Affordable Tuition Now. Wait, what do I mean stood for? This is the closest thing to find this group even existed.
Imagine that.
Econ majors don't want money to go to a group that may or may have not really existed.
Again, SMH until I bleed!
The problem that is not really a problem in that people who have a basic understanding of economics will deal with matters in what economically benefits them. That does not mean that because they do not want to give money to left-wing causes they are anti-social. They are simply employing choice. They are possibly waiting until leaving college and getting a job to find their cause to support. Whether that be financially and or by being a member of any given organization. In fact, who is to say that someone with a degree in economics would not possibly even work for a left-wing group and or promote leftist economics?
Kids, I am here to write to you that despite the propaganda of how terrible you are and even worse wanting to major in economics, it's perfectly fine. Go ahead and seek a degree in economics. And use it well. To your ability. Not the ability of grifting left-wingers.

*-SMH - Smack My Head