Department of Book Reports: Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Legends

That great harbinger of Spring is upon us. Yes, Baseball's Opening Day. All teams start out even, and all may have hopes now of later October glory. So I've spent some devouring Rob Neyer's new book, Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Legends: The Truth, The Lies, and Everything Else (Simon and Schuster $16.00). Rob is one the most well-regarded of baseball writers and analysts. He began his career as a protegee of Bill James (who wrote the introduction to this book), and much of his previous work is stat-driven. His previous books also have equally long titles, which you can see at his website.

Needless to say, as a baseball fan, I have always enjoyed his work. This book actually is a series of short essays about the baseball myths and legends that have grown out of the game's years and decades of good stories. Rob asks the question "Did this really happen" of many of them. Did Billy Martin outplay Jackie Robinson every time they met in Series play? Did Negro Leaguer Gene Benson really know Cleveland's second baseman, Johnny Beradino, out of baseball and into his acting career? Was Freddy Lynn the clutch hitter he think he was? Did Leo Durocher really steal Babe Ruth's watch? And did Babe Ruth really call his shot?

The story, in case you don't know it from the truly awful movies made about Ruth's life, is that in 1932 World Series, the Yankees swept the Cubs in four games where there was much bench jockeying between the teams. In the fifth inning, Ruth came up to hit against Charlie Root, a pitcher not known for being a nice guy on the mound. Legend has it that Ruth, with two strikes on him, dramatically pointed to the bleachers, indicating that the next pitch would be deposited there. And on his swing, he indeed homered. But did it really happen? Neyer examines all the eye-witness accounts, and while not completely debunking the story, suggests that it wasn't such a grand gesture. (Root always maintained if the Babe had done so, he, Root, would have knocked Ruth down on the next pitch). Ruth probably held up a finger to indicate that he had one more swing. (By the way, even if you are not a baseball fan, Robert Creamer's biography of Ruth, The Babe, is a great read. Ruth is the stuff of legend and it is a shame the movies gave him such bad Hollywood treatment. One starred William Bendix and the other John Goodman; I recommend Max Gail's one man show, The Babe, which, I'm afraid, isn't on the Youtubes).

Rob's book is available from Jackson Street Books and other fine independent bookstores.

Here's hoping your favorite team is beaten by the Seattle Mariners in the playoffs and World Series this year.

I hear democommie is planning to throw out the first pitch of this season. Let's hope it's a strike.

Vote for Nora

She's a good girl in a sea of bloodsuckers.

You can vote for her here.

Utah high school stages Scottish smutfest

Brother and Sister Flake were very disappointed with Uintah High's production of Brigadoon.

Dear Editor,

We saw the high school play “Brigadoon” on Saturday.

It was impressive to see all the effort that goes into such a production – it was evident that there was a lot of hard work, from costuming and creating props to memorizing lines and rehearsing music.

With all that effort, it was a great disappointment to discover that the play was not worth seeing. Although there were many fine actors and great music, there was lewd content in this “family entertainment” that prevents us from bringing our children to see it, or from recommending it to others. With out suggestive movements, let alone songs, it could have been so much cleaner and more appropriate. We were saddened that such attitudes and actions would be encouraged among our youth in this way.

Ben and Julie Flake

Vernal

A tip of the ol' helmet to Brother McConkie.

As long as we're reviewing theater productions, I better link back to this one for The Producers--God damned theater let Hitler sing in it.

Greg Gutfeld: The Ultimate Young Republican

Greg Gutfeld
Fox Redeye

Dear Gut,

Well, your apology hasn't worked. Our northern allies are still angry with you for mocking the sacrifice--the lives of one hundred and sixteen Canadian fathers, sons, husbands, and brothers--they've made in a war Our Former Leader waged as if it were a mere hobby, a distraction from other more important things.

Part of your problem is due to your lack of credibility as a war supporter. Many would argue that you have no standing to criticize the service of those who fought and died in Afghanistan, because you've limited your own participation to simply telling jokes about those who fail to express a sufficient degree of blood lust. Your phony pro-war chauvinism, your Potemkin patriotic fervor, is seen as an affront to those who feel the loss of each young man or woman in their guts and mourn each sacrifice made in the name of saving the Bush legacy.

But hey, who cares? We love you (in a heterosexual kind of way). You're almost as big as Joe the Plumber.

Heterosexually yours

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Investigative Report: Obama's teleprompter of Doom

The patriotsphere has been abuzz for months now about Obama's use of teleprompters. Many of my colleagues cite it as evidence that he lacks intelligence--that he uses teleprompters because he lacks the gravitas of such Republican intellectual giants as Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, and George W. Bush.

I think that's just what Obama wants them to believe. He is after our base. He wants to be perceived as possessing the same level of blind ignorance as that which fueled so much passion at McCain-Palin rallies last fall and at C-PAC last month. Because we really dig ignorance. [Notice, I'm speaking the hip language of the kids. I'm with it, man.]

I've suspected all along that he uses teleprompters for a different reason: to assist the Global Amish Conspiracy in achieving total domination of international political and economic systems. Now, I have the scientific evidence to prove it (well, not exactly scientific--I'm not possessed by demons--it's more scientificesque...you know...like creation science).

I conducted my investigation by analyzing an actual photo of Obama's teleprompter. First, I subjected it to an Hindrakian doppler-shift analysis.


As you can see in the print on the right, the analysis exposed a secret message embedded on the telepromper screen (I suspect Obama's left eye has been replaced by a reptilian eye--that's how he sees it). The message says: "brown jacket knows you are secretly Amish. Do not call on him. Buggy 'accident.'" We can only assume the word "arranged" ended that sentence.

This is an important discovery. It confirms my earlier research on Obama's birth certificate.

Next, I exposed the photo to Beck's cyanic wavelength procedure, and found what seemed to be images of a nipple and the Three Stooges. I have to admit I'm puzzled by these results. There's really nothing very Amish about either nipples or Larry, Moe, and Curly Joe (Shemp might have made a little more sense.)



I can only guess that it was some kind of technical glitch and the images were meant to go out on the broadcast feed. That would make sense. No doubt the Amish are trying to destroy our basic values, and what better way to do that than to plant these images into our subconscious. I know I went on a week long self-abuse binge the other time I saw a nipple. The same thing also happens every time I see the stooges.

Finally, I conducted a Bachmannian directed point placement analysis. The result was astounding. There is no question that the points outline the official symbol of the Global Amish Conspiracy (as detailed in the Protocols of the Elders of Lancaster): the slow-moving vehicle sign.



Obviously, the teleprompter serves at least two purposes. First, it allows Obama's Amish masters to provide direction in real-time during his speeches (figure A). And second, it serves as a constant reminder of whom he serves (figure c).

Amazon Review. "Be afraid ACLU. Be very afraid."

Last week, I received an email from Townhall touting a book that is guaranteed to scare the bodaggets off the ACLU. Here's a bit of what it said:

"The Book the ACLU Does NOT Want You to Read! I promise. I saw it happen."
— Gary DeMar, President of American Vision

The Christian Life & Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States

"I was debating an ACLU attorney at Christmas on an NPR station. I pulled out a photocopy of The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States and said to her: "Until you answer this book, the ACLU can't make a case against America's Christian founding." She was shocked when she saw it. She asked where I had gotten it. The only thing that gave her relief was the fact that the book was not in print. But now it is.

"Be afraid ACLU. Be very afraid.

Well of course, I had to get it, and once I had it, I had to write an Amazon review. I've reprinted it below.

Please consider casting a "most helpful review" vote for it. I'm about 100 votes away from getting it listed as the most helpful review.

"Be afraid ACLU. Be very afraid.", March 24, 2009 By  Gen. JC Christian, patriot (Tremonton, UT United States) - See all my reviews I first learned about this book from a Townhall (Salem [Christian] Broadcasting) email offer. Usually, these missives tout opportunities to get rich quick via such methods as investing in abandoned mine claims in Nevada, but this time, they offered something just as precious, "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States."  In the email, the publisher declared that the book terrified the ACLU. "Be afraid, ACLU," the publisher warned, "be very afraid." Simply showing it to an ACLU lawyer, he claimed, sent them into a full-blown panic.  I decided to test this claim at the local ACLU office, and I'm happy to report that it is true. Holding the book as arm's length, I entered the office. The screaming began immediately. Emboldened, I thrust the book at the receptionist, and as it grazed her face, I noticed that it seared her soft, secular cheek. My visit quickly became an orgy burning flesh after that. I went from office to office, cackling loudly, as I punished the godless law-mongers by incinerating their faces with the words of our forefathers. Gosh, it felt good.  That, alone, makes this book worthy of a five star rating, but it has so much more to offer. The author, Bejamin F. Morris, painstakingly researched the book, sorting through thousands upon thousands of founders' statements, winnowing the wheat from the chaf, plucking only the most desirable cherry from each tree, to find the quotes needed to support his arguments.  Gone are the heresies of the nominally-Christian, or to be more accurate, "achristian." deists who comprised the largest faction in the Continental Congress. Instead, Morris provides us a kind of minority report written by the only founders who count, the believers.  That said, I must admit that, unfortunately, I have yet to come upon a justification for slavery (I'm only partially through the book; it has bigger words than Joe the Plumber's, and I had to let it air out for a week before beginning--the stench of smoking law-monger face was strong). I'm sure there must be a slavery justification in there, somewhere. Many of the same founding fathers Morris quotes were just as strongly pro-slavery as they were pro-Christian. Certainly, biblically-based arguments supporting the peculiar institution were common in those days. My guess is Morris, having served as a Confederate soldier only a couple of years before writing the book, shared those views, so a justification may be there after all. I just have to have faith that I will find it.

Your Tags: aclu, christian, face incinerating

No Falafels For Lunch

Ellen Augello
It Happened To Alexa Foundation

Dear Mrs. Augello,

It was a bold move to ask Bill O'Reilly to host your fundraising luncheon. Most rape victim support organizations would shy away from inviting someone who blames victims for their fashion choices. But the Alexa Foundation is different. You're all about breaking paradigms, and I salute you for that.

But now, the news that he sent a camera crew to stalk a woman--trailing her for hours before finally confronting her while she was on vacation miles from home--is likely to turn your O'Reilly appearance into a full-fledged PR crisis.

You're in a tough spot now. You can't really cancel it. He doesn't take "no"for an answer--that's especially true if it's a woman saying it. But you can't really go through with the luncheon either. Imagine the black eye you'd receive if the event were picketed by rape survivors.

I have a solution to your dilemma. Ask O'Reilly to do a fund raiser that can't be picketed. I'm thinking along the lines of one of those auction s where celebrities donate a few hours of their time to have dinner with the highest bidder. But instead of dinner, have O'Reilly re-enact one of his famous calls to Andrea Makris. What woman wouldn't want O'Reilly to attempt to seduce her over the phone while he's pleasuring himself with a ReamMaster 5000? For men, there's the lure of O'Reilly's description of his showering techniques--who could resist that. The bidding can all be done on-line.

And you could still hold the fund raising luncheon. Just replace O'Reilly with a speaker who is more positively identified with women's issues. I bet Joey Buttafuco is available.

I hope I've been helpful. Please let me know if I can provide more assistance.

Heterosexually yours in a chaste, biblical, and no-spin zone kind of way,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

It's time to stop getting horny about America

L. Brent Bozell III
President, Media Research Center

Dear Mr. Bozell,

At first, I didn't know what to think when Joe the Plumber strode up to the podium at your awards banquet and declared, "I am horny." Such a statement seemed out of place at an event run by a guy who once crusaded against Michael Jackson's "happy man loaf." But after watching it again, I noticed that Mr. the Plumber was introduced while Lee Greenwood's patriotic meal-ticket, God bless the USA blared over the loudspeakers.

And that's when it struck me. Joe the plumber is horny for America. I can understand that. Who hasn't had a purity crisis while considering Wyoming's Grand Tetons or the watermelon fields of Alabama.

But it's not always a Godly kind of horniness. Sometimes, a guy looks at a map and sees Florida thrusting hard into the warm, willing waters of the Gulf, and it does something to him. It makes him think about certain things and how the light falls on them as they strain against the fabric of a sailors pants. You know what I mean. You start thinking about Florida, and the next thing you know, you wake up naked, sore, and sticky in a restroom at a place called the Manhole. And no matter what you do, you can't get those Gloria Gaynor songs out of your head.

No wonder Joe the Plumber was horny.

We need to do something about it. Of course the easiest thing to do would be to change the maps. Your organization could lead the effort.

My first thought was that we could move the Dominican Republic up next to Florida and turn it all into a boot like those Italians have. But that'd just make Rush horny and he'd wind up driving into the Gulf. We'd end up leaderless.

So, maybe it's a better idea to tuck it up under Mississippi and Alabama. You know, like Sen. Lindsey Graham likes to do at those retreats. That's always a lot of fun.

Let me know if I can help.

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Hard News

ABC, the pride of Disney, will soon be airing one of it's most important episodes of Nightline ever:

Is Satan a religious fable, or an actual being wreaking havoc in the world?

The question was debated yesterday by four unusual suspects – one megachurch pastor, one former television preacher branded by some as a heretic, the alternative medicine guru Deepak Chopra and the founder of Hookers for Jesus – in a taped debate that will air on national television later this month.

This is going to be one of television's finest moments. Who'd have guessed that the founder of Hookers for Jesus would risk demeaning herself by appearing with Chopra.

Loves me a little more blues

Wow, what a voice!



And if you like Mavis Staples, you'll love Bettye LaVette.



Free download of the first one at The Sixty-One. If you sign up, please consider putting GenJCChristian in as your referral.

Bailing Out the Rich on the Backs of the Workers

_{Image © Austin Cline
Click for full-sized Image}

Republicans have been put in a difficult and interesting situation: should they choose public, political demagoguery by attacking the Obama administration over things like the AIG bonuses, or should they defend such bonuses as just compensation against the machinations of evil Demon-crats who just want to tax the rich in the name of communist revolution? Both are intrinsically appealing to conservatives today, but they are also mutually exclusive — you can't both oppose the bonuses and oppose doing anything about them without looking especially stupid, as Eric Cantor so effectively demonstrated.

Republicans have made it clear that their only real interest right now is politics, not the public interest, and therefore are only looking for ways to attack the Obama administration. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, or at least anyone who has read my sermons over the past couple of years, because this follows naturally and logically from the political philosophy of Carl Schmitt, a jurist in Germany before and during the Third Reich.

Carl Schmitt basically argued that politics should be treated as little more than a power struggle in which all is permitted for the sake of defeating one's enemies — not opponents, much less colleagues, but enemies. In Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich, Ingo Muller writes:

Carl Schmitt — who can aptly be characterized as the "state thinker" of the Third Reich — was the first to make this polarized attitude of "friend or foe" respectable in scholarly circles. In 1927, in his book Der Begriff des Politischen (The Concept of the Political), he expressed as no one else had how conservatives then understood politics.

In his view, "the specifically political decision on which political actions and motives are based" was "the distinction between friend and foe." Its purpose was to characterize "the most extreme degree of intensity in a connection or a separation," for a political foe is "precisely that other, that alien being, and it suffices to identify his nature to say that he is existentially an other, an alien in a particularly intensive sense, so that in extreme cases conflicts with him are possible which can be decided neither by a previously determined general norm nor by the verdict of a third party who is not involved and therefore impartial" — that is, by neither law nor judicial decorum.

According to this doctrine, the concepts of "friend, foe, and struggle" acquire "their real significance through the fact that they exist in a framework of the real possibility of physical killing."

The ultimate aim of this sort of politics is to eliminate one's political opponents — either eliminate them as an independent political force or elimination entirely. The former was expressed quite well by Rush Limbaugh at the recent CPAC meeting when he said "To us, bipartisanship is them being forced to agree with us after we politically have cleaned their clocks and beaten them. And that has to be what we’re focused on." In other words, bipartisanship isn't about compromising in order to get things done, but rather about one side surrendering so the other side can rule unopposed.

We should keep firmly in mind, though, how Schmitt envisioned that if one's opponents cannot be eliminated by forcing them into a permanently subordinate role, they may legitimately be eliminated through physical extermination. He couldn't have readily argued otherwise because that conclusion follows logically from the rest of his arguments.

If the end goal of the political process is for one group or party to exercise complete control and dominance over the political system, then the presence of former political opponents — even in a subordinate and submissive role — simply isn't necessary. The ultimate and most permanent means for eliminating one's political opponents is to physically eliminate them, and we can see a number of conservatives today pushing the envelope on justifying exactly that.

There is no obvious or necessary reason for politics to function in this manner; it's simply the way politics naturally has to be according to adherents of this doctrine. The idea of pursuing a course of action for the sake of the community's good or best interests never even enters into the political calculations. This is why any attempt by observers to reconcile conservative talking-points and Republican policies with the pursuit of the public good keeps failing. No such reconciliation is possible. These Republicans want to exercise power simply for the sake of exercising power, not for the sake of serving the public or advancing any public interests.

Loves me some blues