Eric The Blue

Twins in June

The Twins in June, meh: 13 wins, 15 losses, their first losing month of the season. Could have been worse considering that the month began and ended on seasonal low points. On June 1 and 2, they lost games in Detroit, capping off a series in which they fell in four of five to the lowly Tigers. Their pitching staff was in tatters—just getting to the 9-inning finish line each day was a challenge, without regard to the question of winning or losing, and their next nine games were against the Jays, Yankees, and Rays, all playoff teams. Somehow they went 5-4 in those three series. They were bumping along like that till the end of the month, when they had another 5-game road series, this one in Cleveland against the Guardians, who are proving to be their main competition in the AL Central. They won two one-sided games and lost the other three, all after late-inning leads had been bollixed by the bullpen, the last two, on the 29th and 30th, by the walk-off homer method. 

The problem of just finding a pitcher to get you to the end of the game has again arisen. On June 30, locked in a tight contest against the team with the best chance to finish ahead of them in the division, the Twins were reduced to sending Tyler Thornburg to the mound for the eighth and ninth innings. Who, you might ask, is Tyler Thornburg, thereby making my point for me. He pitched to eleven batters, retiring five of them. Of the other six, three walked, one was hit by a pitch, and two got hits. Four scored, two in the eighth and two in the ninth, including of course the guy who hit the walk-off dinger. Thornburg threw 48 pitches in the game, and, of the 47 that didn't hit the batter, 26 were called balls. His place on the roster has now been taken by Juan Minaya, who was called up from the Twins' Triple-A affiliate in St. Paul, where he had compiled a 5.73 ERA over 22 innings pitched.

The Twins reportedly are in talks with other teams about possibly acquiring bullpen help. You might say that their desperation is partly their own doing. At the start of the season, they traded Taylor Rogers, a bullpen stalwart over the past few seasons, as well as prospect Brent Rooker, to the San Diego Padres for pitchers Emilio Pagan, Chris Paddack, and Brayan Medina. Pagan has been a leading figure in the bullpen collapse—he has an ERA north of 5 and a WHIP north of 1.4. Paddack hasn't pitched since early May and recently underwent Tommy John surgery. Medina is struggling in the low minors. Rogers has a 2.84 ERA and 22 saves for the Padres.

The Twins record against the Guardians this year has been crazy. In eleven games played so far, Minnesota has outscored Cleveland 61-45—and won just five times. The six losses have been by a total of seven runs. The Twins are one game ahead of Cleveland in the AL Central standings.

Though it's not as if there haven't been bright spots for a team that's still in first place. Luis Arraez continues to lead the American League in batting average (.343) and on base percentage (.421). Byron Buxton has played in just 60 of the team's 80 games but still has slugged 21 home runs—Aaron Judge is the only hitter in the majors with more than 23. The beleaguered pitching staff has received a respite from some unlikely sources, such as Devin Smeltzer, who in his last couple of starts has allowed just one run in 12 innings pitched. Jhoan Duran and Griffin Jax have both pitched well in relief all year. Alas and alack, there's a game every day, and they can't pitch in all of them. What did fans of the Boston Braves used to say? 

First we'll use Spahn
and then we'll use Sain.
Then an off day
followed by rain.
Back will come Spahn
followed by Sain,
and followed
we hope
by two days of rain.

But if you're calling in guys from the bullpen, it already hasn't rained.

Justice Thomas looks forward

During their confirmation hearings, Supreme Court nominees are routinely asked what they think about this issue or that case, and they routinely answer that it would be inappropriate for them to comment since, if confirmed to the Court, they might have to rule on that very question. Justice Thomas, in his confirmation hearing, sometimes followed a different strategy. When asked his opinion of Roe v Wade, he said that he couldn't comment—not because it would be inappropriate, but because he had no opinion at all. According to him, he'd never thought about it. He was then confirmed, and as a fiftyish man soon had to form his first ever opinion about the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence. It turns out that, after careful study, he regards with contempt the notion that there is a constitutional right to abortion. In the recent Dobbs case, reversing Roe and Casey, he was not content, for example, just to join the majority opinion. He said in a separate concurring opinion that the majority was correct to reverse the court's previous abortion decisions, but he wanted to go on record stating what he thinks should happen next. Here's the passage, from pages 118 and 119 in the Court's collection of the different opinions in the case, here:

The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine's application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v Connecticut (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives), Lawrence v Texas (right to engage in private, consensual sex acts), and Obergefell v Hodges (right to same sex marriage), are not at issue. . . . For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents.

I've omitted the case citations in the text, but the phrases "demonstrably erroneous" and "correct the error" are in quotation marks because Justice Thomas is referring to previous opinions of his. It's pretty clear that the rule against indicating what you think about a question that might come before the Supreme Court evaporates once you've been confirmed to a lifetime appointment. Justice Thomas is saying, very explicitly, that he thinks the legal reasoning underlying these other precedents is "demonstrably erroneous" and that the cases should be reconsidered, in the manner of Roe and Casey. He's advertising for business from the kind of right-wing interest groups his wife often represents in her lobbying business. "Here's what I think; bring some cases, appeal them up to the Supreme Court, I'll take your side." Is there another way to understand what he's saying? 

Conservatives complain about "the swamp" in Washington but there is no swampier institution than their own Supreme Court. Its composition is determined by an actuarial lottery augmented by political machinations. The confirmation hearings are absurd charades in which the nominees lie and dissemble and a majority of senators pretend to believe them—although, I have to admit, some of the senators are so stupid that they may actually believe them. Once on the Court for life, the justices step out of their threadbare disguises and commence ruling as their political sponsors (and the rest of the sentient population) knew they would. Occasionally one of the justices expresses puzzlement, or annoyance, over why so many Americans should think they're just partisan hacks in robes. When Justice Amy Coney Barrett took her turn, Mitch McConnell was standing beside her. Maybe they want to rub our faces in it, or maybe they're so invested in the scam as to be rendered clueless about how it looks to honest people. I don't know. Barrett and two of her colleagues—that's three out of the nine, and half of the right-wing super-majority—were appointed to the Court by a traitorous coup plotter, but it's doubtful he'll ever go to prison, or even be indicted, and nothing will happen to them in any event: the fruit of the rotten tree will be lording it over us for a couple generations, assuming the country holds together that long. 

 

Prayer at the 50

Someone has aptly said that so long as there are tests in math there will be prayer in schools. But prayers concerning solutions to story problems, being by nature private and silent, do not end up the subject of First Amendment litigation. The high-school football coach leading his players in prayer at the 50-yard-line is different, though as of yesterday, according to the Supreme Court, as acceptable as a cry from the depths about algebra. The one probably unusual opinion I have about the case relates to the question of "what Jesus would say." Seriously!

One side favors the decision because people have to be free to practice their religious faith. The other side condemns it because the coach is using his position to coerce students into participating in Christian prayers at the end of a school activity. Jesus, in the sermon on the mount, says:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. . . . [Matthew 6, 5-8]

Standing on the street corner babbling like a pagan seems to me a lot like kneeling at the 50-yard-line, babbling like a football coach. The conservative justices imagine they've struck a blow for religious freedom, but they've merely given their imprimatur to shallow displays of religiosity. Sorry, Jesus says, not me. 

Meanwhile, back in the real world, where there are still public schools, it's too bad that kids who want to play on the team will have to put up with this crap. 

 

Surfing

A hard day of surfing the 'Net can yield up some interesting morsels. I knew, for example, that Tony Oliva, who will be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame later this summer, had a fabulous rookie season in 1964, and that one of the categories in which he led the American League that year was total bases. Yesterday I saw that he had 374 total bases in 1964—his 217 hits included 32 homers, 9 triples, and 43 doubles. Brooks Robinson, the American Leaguer with the second most total bases in 1964, had only 319. To catch Tony, Robinson would have had to hit, for example, 28 additional doubles. The guy in third place, Harmon Killebrew, had just three fewer total bases (316) than Robinson, and that's pretty much how it goes down the line. Tony-O lapped the field. Not sure anyone ever had a better rookie year. 

In an unrelated field, the spring of 1969 was the last time a majority of justices on the Supreme Court had been appointed by a Democratic president. That's 53 years now. In that time, 17 justices have been appointed, 13 of them by Republican presidents. Over the same period, Republicans won 7 out of 13 presidential elections (and got more votes in only 5 out of the 13). On the current court, 6 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republicans even though, over the time period they were appointed, Democratic candidates won more presidential elections. Seems obvious to me that the justices should serve for a set period of time with terms expiring at regular intervals—probably one every other year, so that two new justices are appointed during each presidential term. Take it out of the hand of God (who decides when justices croak) and Mitch McConnell (who, when a justice croaks, decides whether the sitting president gets to appoint the replacement). 

 

Latin lesson

I wrote a while ago about Chuck Grassley's Twitter feed, which is enjoyable when he performs his great-grampa-in-Iowa act:

If u lost ur pet pidgin /it’s dead in front yard my Iowa farm JUST DISCOVERED here r identifiers Right leg Blue 2020/3089/AU2020/SHE ///LEFT LEG GREEN BAND NO PRINTED INFO. Sorry for bad news

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) September 19, 2020

But he's also one of a hundred US senators, and when he tweets in that capacity . . . not sure his mental acumen exceeds the average for his demographic cohort:

For many today’s decision is about far more than correcting Roe it means that the rights of the unborn are no longer in jeopardy This ruling empowers the ppl thru their elected reps to make commonsense policy decisions It takes policymaking out of the hands of unelected judges

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) June 24, 2022

Maybe he's unaware that back in the mists of time, like yesterday, some unelected judges held that the people of New York, acting through their elected representatives, could not enact "commonsense policy decisions," related to carrying guns in public, that they deemed necessary to promote safety and the general welfare. The law was adopted more than a hundred years ago.

Stare decisis must be Latin for "previously owned by an old lady who only drove back and forth from home to church and the grocery store." Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, bought the jalopy: "This decision [reversing Roe] is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon." Sucka! (She also voted to acquit Trump at his first impeachment trial, since, she said, "he's learned his lesson.") 

Polling shows that only a quarter of respondents say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the Supreme Court—a record low. I'd like a gallon freezer bag full of whatever the 25 percent is smoking. It evidently will transport you to a faraway land where the swamps smell of wisteria.  

Act now to be an American hero before the bar is raised

 

Hearing people talk about Mike Pence being an American hero put me in mind of Sam Morril's bit in the above clip. It's a great time to be a guy—the bar is so low—and an even better time to be a Republican. He went on a date and did not commit any felonies: an American hero! He was recruited to play a part in the overthrow of the government but instead he did what the Constitution required, thereby daring to disappoint the guy who tried to get him killed: another American hero! Now if only the first guy could kick his porn habit and the second would testify about what he knows. 

Mark Shields, 1937-2022

Mark Shields, who died this morning, was for years a Friday night political commentator on PBS NewsHour, formerly known as the McNeill Lehrer Report. He'd discuss the week's political news with a conservative sparring partner—earliest one I can remember was Paul Gigot, then David Gergen, and most recently David Brooks. I must have seen a thousand of these segments in the 90s and early aughts, often the midnight rerun while the effects of happy hour were starting to wear off. Today, everyone is saying what a mensch he was, and I'm sure it's true, but if you only knew him because you consumed political journalism on TV what stood out (besides the fact that I almost always agreed with him) was his wit. He once said, on live television, something like, "Regarding Chris Christie, I'm probably about the last person who should tell him to join a gym. But let me tell ya something: watching that guy get out of an SUV, it was like watching the Russians get out of Afghanistan. Took that long." 

He was an Irish Catholic, a Marine, a Notre Dame grad (major: philosophy), a sports fan (Red Sox and Georgetown basketball), smart and funny and, according to the testimony of many, kind—one thing about the Christie quip, he wasn't punching down. 

Update: I keep forgetting it's 2022. Here's the clip. It's hilarious that Rush Limbaugh fans faulted him for "mocking Christie's weight."

 

 

Bedfellows

Ann Coulter's most recent Substack post begins, "As much as I'm enjoying the January 6th committee's careful assembly of evidence proving President Trump is a douchebag, I wasn't seeing much in the way of a criminal offense until this week's underreported story about how Trump used his 'STOP THE STEAL' fundraising appeals to grift his supporters . . . ."

Not sure whether I should feel queasy or validated about agreeing with Ann Coulter on the fundamentals of Trump's character. But, regarding the former president's criminal exposure, she might want to consult with some legal beagles who are pretty sure Trump violated multiple federal statutes by, for example, pressuring Pence not to perform his constitutional duties on 6 January 2021. There is also the fact that federal judge David Carter, in an order directing Trump attorney John Eastman to turn over documents to the congressional committee investigating J6, wrote that the evidence in his records case persuaded him that Trump "more likely than not" committed crimes related to the effort to block or delay the certification of electoral votes. The grifting is actually a kind of sidelight that, however revelatory of Trump's character, seems in the scheme of things roughly analogous to another of his consiglieres, Rudy Giuliani, complaining bitterly that in fact he (Giuliani) hadn't been smashed (when advising Trump to get along with the coup). 

Coulter's article is mainly about Dinesh D'Souza's movie "2000 Mules," which I'd heard about without, however, learning any details. Apparently D'Souza obtained cell phone tracking records that either have persuaded him (if he's a moron) or given him a pretext to assert (if he's vile) that there's proof the election was stolen from Trump when, as Coulter summarizes, "2000 people delivered multiple ballots to election drop boxes in the five crucial battleground states that Trump lost.” Coulter does a decent job of dismantling this absurd claim by pointing out, among other things, that D'Souza's cell phone records do not distinguish between mailmen and "mules." She might also have mentioned that, in general, claims of suspicious doings in the battleground states should be measured against what happened in the country as a whole. I'd bet my first 20 social security checks that, had a disinterested investigator gotten cell phone records around counting stations in San Francisco and Laramie, he would have detected the same kind of "suspicious" activity that D'Souza claims to have uncovered in "the crucial battleground states." The whole bit about cell phone tracking is just meant to give a veneer of techie prestige to bullshit. Nothing was going on in the battleground states that wasn't going on in the whole country—the widely reported election results show this. Trump lost to Clinton by 2.1 percent, then to Biden by 4.5 percent. So a 2.4 percent movement away from Trump, enough to turn the narrowly decided "battlegrounds" from red to blue. Trump went backwards by two or three or four percent in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan and also by two or three or four percent in Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Virginia, both Dakotas, Tennessee, Alabama, Washington, Kentucky, Maryland, and most other states I haven't mentioned. 

But there were "mules" in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania!