Subscribe via RSS Feed

Great Moments in Drunken Mayhem

[ 0 ] June 4, 2007 | davenoon

Today is the 33rd anniversary of one of the most staggering promotional failures in American sports history. On 4 June 1974, fans who showed up to watch the Cleveland Indians host the Texas Rangers were treated to a remarkably ill-conceived event known as “Ten Cent Beer Night.” Throughout the game, vendors dispensed tens of thousands of cups of Stroh’s beer to the 25,000 irascible fans who filled the soul-less, bug-infested cavern otherwise known as Cleveland Municipal Stadium. The result, quite predictably, was ugly.

The 1960s and 1970s were an awful time for northern Ohio, as the departure of heavy industry and the frenzied flight of white residents to the suburbs helped cut the city’s population nearly in half from its post-World War II high of 900,000. By 1974, Cleveland was five years past the infamous Cuyahoga River chemical fire and four years from declaring bankruptcy. For those who were able to struggle out of bed on June 4, the opportunity to drown in cheap alcohol must have seemed like an instance of divine intervention.

As fate would have it, a similar cheap beer promotion grew out of hand the previous week, when the Rangers and Indians met in Arlington, Texas. Midway through that game, the teams brawled, and Rangers fans responded by tossing cups of beer onto the field. Nothing that night, however, rivaled the lunacy that ensued in Cleveland when the Rangers arrived for a three-game series on June 4; averaging a mere 8000 fans per game that season, Cleveland Indians officials hoped that alcohol might create a buzz that their team’s players themselves could not.

During the first few innings, tipsy fans tossed smoke bombs and firecrackers at each other. By the second inning, a topless woman had leaped onto the field and chased down one of the umpires for an unwanted kiss; another streaker joined the Rangers’ Tom Grieve as he circled the bases following his second home run of the night; a father and son team ran into the outfield and dropped their pants. Meantime, golf balls, rocks and batteries rained down on Texas’ players throughout the game. At one point, someone heaved an empty gallon of Thunderbird wine at Rangers’s first baseman Mike Hargrove. As the game neared its conclusion, the evening descended into total chaos. During the ninth inning, the Indians managed to tie the score and placed the winning run on third base. At that point, a fan ran into the outfield to steal Jeff Burroughs’ glove. When Burroughs began chasing the fan, Rangers’ manager Billy Martin, along with several of Burroughs’ teammates, rushed to help out — several of them, including Martin, carried bats.

Not caring that their team was about to win a rare victory, the most intoxicated people in Cleveland began throwing hot dogs, beer cups, broken seats and glass bottles at their guests from Texas. Thousands of fans stormed the field, some of them brandishing chains and knives and metal chairs.

Within minutes, the umpires’ crew chief Nestor Chylak had invoked Rule 3.18 and forfeited the game to Texas. Chylak later described the fans as “uncontrollable beasts,” adding that he had never seen anything quite like it, “except in a zoo.” American League president Lee MacPhail concluded that beer “played a great role” in the affair.

(Cross-posted at the Axis)

It’s Alright Mr. Kennedy, My Uterus Is Only Bleeding

[ 0 ] June 4, 2007 | Scott Lemieux

Marty Lederman points us to an interesting WaPo article, in which a few members of America’s tiny minority of serious, principled “pro-lifers” have come to see that “Partial Birth” bans are silly, irrational laws whose primary purpose is to separate money from their wallets and funnel it to the Republican Party. Focus on the Family, however, maintains that the bans do have an upside: the law does increase the “danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus.” If you don’t believe me that most of the American forced pregnancy lobby cares a great deal more about punishing women for sexual choices they don’t approve of than protecting fetal life, well, I say we take their word for it.

And, again, this explains the sexism in Kennedy’s opinion; you take it away, and the legislation has no connection with a legitimate state interest at all. As you can see, most anti-choicers (despite the bad faith Congressional findings that 2+2=171) don’t really think that these bans on a safer procedure protect women’s physical health. They simply believe that women can’t be trusted to make judgments about their own lives, and if this causes some women to be seriously injured that’s a feature, not a bug. It’s almost impossible to overstate how disgusting this legislation is, and how deeply entwined outright misogyny is with the American “pro-life” movement.

Off the Canvas

[ 0 ] June 4, 2007 | Scott Lemieux

The Red Sox, I suppose did the job they needed to do for themselves; they’re still pretty much in command of the division. But although mitigated by Saturday’s enjoyable victory–with Pasta Diving turning in such a wretched defensive performance that (after some hilarious straining: “Lowell got in his eyes! And then the moons of Saturn!”) even McCarver had to stop making excuses–with respect to the more important question of knocking the Yankees out of the playoffs they failed once again. The Yankees are only 7 out of the wildcard, and they’re certainly capable of making that up. You can’t say they’re favored–the Tigers and Indians are both pretty good–but they have a very serious chance. I still think they’ll score the most runs in the league, their rotation will be OK, and Rivera’s clearly back. (A lot of the undue optimism about the Yankees seems to revolve around Slappy’s alleged lack of clutchiosity and Jetertude, which as we saw once again last night are regrettably unfounded.) Although I like the Red Sox more as a team, it must be said that the Angels did their job while the Red Sox have now let them hang around by losing 4 out of 6 when they were down.

Having said that, I was probably wrong about the Red Sox not winning the division and certainly wrong about them not signing Damon. I still don’t like Crisp at all as an offensive player–he’s a singles hitter with no plate discipline–but he’s not only been better than Damon in the field but actually good period, and if the Red Sox sign Jones or Ichiro! they’ll obviously win the gamble easily. But the Yankees will be in the playoff hunt in September.

You may have also heard that Clemens was scratched today with a “fatigued groin.” Rumors that he was following the Slappy Tour of Manhattan are unconfirmed at press time.

Hitchens, the Gift that Keeps on Giving

[ 0 ] June 4, 2007 | davenoon

Behold:

Peter Collier: Of all the public intellectuals that kind of snapped to attention on 9/11, only you and a few others — Victor Davis Hanson comes to mind — still seem to be on a war footing. Do you feel embattled? You feel chastened by the stuttering incompetence of the War on Terror? Has it become a chore to defend the war in Iraq?

Christopher Hitchens: Well, when you say I feel embattled, it would be as if, if I said yes, that would be in some way to be morose, or to feel self-pity. You picked the crucial word. I should come right out and say it. I mean, for me, it’s enough to be at war. The crucial thing is to be at war, and to know what side you’re on in it.

As with Victor Hanson, who I didn’t know before this, though I’d once reviewed one of his books on classical studies — if you haven’t read his book on the Peloponnesian War, you must.

Peter Collier: It’s great.

Christopher Hitchens: Very modest and decent guy. If you like the Cincinnatus of our struggle — and he was a farmer. He wanted to be left alone, teaching classics to Spanish-speaking immigrants in the valley around Fresno, and traveling up every now and then to Stanford to teach classics at a higher level, and be a great historian. And his only real work on warfare had been a sort of memoir of those of his family [who fought] at Iwo Jima.

A man literally — like Cincinnatus — taken from the plough to say, All right, now it’s war. Now everyone must be involved. Very proud to have met him this way. He and I agree.

Hitch’s belief that “the crucial thing is to be at war” — and that he offers up this casual belligerence to deflect a question on the failures of the war on terrorism — is merely the second most jaw-droppingly thick thing he has to offer in this passage. Remarkable feat, that.

Reputation and the Vote

[ 0 ] June 3, 2007 | Robert Farley

Several of the comments on this post make what is essentially a reputational argument about the failure of the Democrats to establish a timetable or create other limits on the ability of the President to carry out the war. Since I reject reputational arguments in reference to international politics, I’m not sure why I should take them seriously in the domestic context, either. If I can summarize (and I understand that I may do violence to the intent of some commenters), the argument goes something like this: By backing down, the Democrats in Congress displayed a lack of resolve, and the President will take advantage of this lack of resolve in future conflicts over war funding. I’m skeptical for several reasons:

  • The Democrats didn’t display a lack of resolve. They displayed a lack of votes. I fail to see how reminding everyone of this by failing to stop the war in a prolonged legislative fight improves the situation of the party or begins to end the war.
  • Resolve is important in a theoretical sense because it changes the behavior of the adversary. If the enemy believes we possess resolve, then s/he will be deterred from some behavior that we find unpleasant. That’s fine as far as it goes, but it makes no sense in this context. First, I doubt very much that the President’s beliefs about Democratic resolve or lack thereof are going to change his behavior regarding the war. His own rhetoric has left him with very few options. I don’t really see how, if the Democrats had displayed additional resolve at this juncture, it would have changed Presidential behavior down the line. Moreover, the behavior of the President doesn’t really matter. The next fight over funding will be determined by the ability of Reid and Pelosi to hold the caucus together and to chase down Republican defectors, which is another way of saying that capability instead of resolve will decide the outcome.
  • The theoretical case for the importance of resolve is, in any case, indeterminate. There are multiple ways in which the President (and anyone else) could have interpreted the series of votes on the war. It’s certainly possible that the President believes that the failure of the Democratic Congress to press the withdrawal vote is evidence of lack of will or lack of resolve. But people don’t always view such events in this way; it’s also quite possible that the administration (and other Republicans) understood this as a preparatory effort to a later fight. In any case, like I suggest above, the point is probably moot; I doubt very much that anything about the President’s behavior depends on the behavior of Democrats.

Fighting the tough fight now doesn’t necessarily make the next fight easier, and it can make that fight harder. A demonstration of resolve makes little difference either way. Pressing a fight at an inopportune time can actually prove counter-productive. While Atrios may be right that the oft-mentioned defection of a group of Republicans from the war party will never happen, the practical meaning of this is that, until January 2009, a withdrawal won’t happen, either. The Democrats cannot force a withdrawal without Republican support. Were they to force Bush into some funding shenanigans in order to continue the war, they would still need Republican support in order to punish the administration. The sad fact of the American political system is that what the Democrats want to do cannot be accomplished without the defection of some Republicans. Did the course of events make it easier or harder for marginal Republicans to support the President come September? It’s difficult to say, but my guess is harder; barring a radical transformation of the trends, Iraq will look as bad then as it does now.

I also quite strongly disagree with the contention that nothing was accomplished by the initial vote for a withdrawal timetable. While no formal restriction on the President’s powers was achieved, rhetorical position obviously matters in politics. Pelosi and Reid have taken a party that, a year ago, was confused and disoriented regarding the war have placed it quite clearly on the side of withdrawal. It’s now more obvious than ever that the war is, fundamentally, a Republican war, to be continued with the active support only of the Republican Party, and perhaps only part thereof. This is work that needed to be done in preparation for later funding battles, and is the central achievement of the last several months.

Finally, I quite agree with this, from Terence Samuel:

The war is obviously unpopular, and President Bush’s job approval rating is at historic lows — it would be tempting to just play the strongest available hand. That would be to force him to keep vetoing bill, and to force unpopular votes on the GOP in Congress. That would be easy, but it wouldn’t end the war. The vetoes would be sustained, and at any rate wars don’t end at the conclusion of a roll call vote. It will take Republican votes to force the president into the corner. Those are starting to come; cutting off funding would turn back that support.

So even though the supplemental compromise had the look of past weak-kneed Democratic surrenders, there was a strategic rationale to it that should make the opponents of the war, if not proud, at least hopeful. The slow build from a series of failed non-binding resolutions last summer to a presidential veto this spring shows a level of persistence — and strategery — among Hill Democrats that would make the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue proud.

Sunday Deposed Monarch Blogging: Clan Aisin Gioro

[ 0 ] June 3, 2007 | Robert Farley

The tribal peoples of northeast Asia had been of concern to the Chinese Empire well prior to the 17th century. In the 13th century, the Mongols had descended upon China and created the Yuan Dynasty, only to be chased out less than a hundred years later. The Yuan were replaced by the native Ming Dynasty, which reinforced the northern defenses and forced many the tribes into vassalage. In 1583 the Jurchen chieftain Nurhaci, whose father and grandfather had died in service to the Ming emperor, began to consolidate the northern tribes under a new system of military organization. Nurhaci also carried out military campaigns against the Mongols, gaining their respect and a degree of allegiance. In 1612 he renamed his clan Aisin Gioro, and in 1616 founded the Later Jin Dynasty, centered around the town of Mukden. Wars against the Koreans, Mongols, Ming, and other northern tribes expanded the Jin until Nurhaci’s death in 1626. His son and successor Huang Taiji further expanded the Jin, renaming in Qing and mandating that the Jurchen people would henceforth be known as the Manchu people.

The rise of the Qing corresponded with the decline of the Ming. Internal disputes and a major peasant rebellion had weakened the aging dynasty such that the Qing were able to press successfully on its northern territories. A series of victories in the early 1640s led to the conquest of the imperial capitol at Beijing in 1644. The Manchus, uncharacteristically for foreign invaders, showed immense respect for Chinese imperial forms and styled themselves the direct inheritors of Ming imperial rule. Over the next thirty years the Manchus, under the rule of Emperor Kangxi from 1661, would destroy the remnants of the Ming and subjugate various other opponents, including the Mongols. The last serious resistance on the part of Ming loyalists would be conducted on the island of Formosa, which had previously been occupied by Dutch traders and non-Han tribesmen. The Qing extinguished this resistance in 1683, occupying and annexing, for the first time, the island to the Chinese Empire.

Emperor Kangxi served from 1661 until his death in 1723. His grandson, the Qianlong Emperor, served from 1735 until his abdication in 1795. Although the Qianlong Emperor’s reign is remembered both as a time of plenty and an age of significant cultural achievement, by the end some strains were beginning to show. Pressure inside and outside China began to increase, as corruption rose and the military threat of encroaching European powers grew. The Opium Wars, an unfavorable balance of trade, the Taiping Rebellion (led by a man who styled himself the younger brother of Jesus Christ), and an increase in nationalist (and anti-Manchu) feeling significantly weakened the dynasty. Efforts at reform were bitterly resisted by the Manchu aristocracy, personified from 1861 by the Empress Dowager Cixi. Cixi dominated Chinese imperial politics until her death in 1908. Shortly before dying, she installed Puyi, not yet three years of age, as Emperor of China.

The Qing Dynasty survived Cixi by three years. Puyi was allowed to remain in the Forbidden City in Beijing until 1924, and enjoyed a very brief restoration in 1917. Eight years after his expulsion from the Forbidden City, Puyi became emperor of the Japanese puppet state of Machukuo, built around territory seized by Japan from China in 1931. Puyi held virtually no real power, and what supporters he had were steadily replaced or undermined by the Japanese. Manchukuo was instrumental in the Japanese Fugu Plan, a rather odd effort to attract Jews (and their presumed innate ability to make money and dominate the minds of men) from Nazi dominated parts of Europe to the Far East. In any case, the Japanese effort in World War II went poorly, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in August 1945 brought Manchukuo to an end. Puyi was captured by the Red Army and eventually extradited to the People’s Republic of China.

After undergoing re-education (immortalized in Bertolucci’s The Last Emperor) Puyi lived in Beijing until his death without issue in 1967. The imperial line passed either to Puyi’s cousin Yuyan, who endured two long terms of imprisonment before his final release in 1979, or to Puyi’s brother Pujie, who had a similar prison career. The evidence seems to favor Yuyan. Both Yuyan and Pujie died in 1994, leaving Yuyan’s son Heng Chen the most likely heir. Heng Chen currently lives in China, and has designated his own son as heir to the Qing Dynasty. Prospects for restoration, however, seem quite grim. Very little sentiment for a return to the monarchy exists in China, and it is unlikely that, in the unlikely event of a monarchical restoration, the Manchu Qings would be selected for imperial honor. The Manchu ethnic minority has been substantially assimilated by the Han Chinese, making a return to the throne in an independent Manchukuo eqully unlikely.

Trivia: The coat of arms of what dynasty include a Christian cross, a Star of David, and an Islamic crescent?

Worst American Birthdays, vol. XVII

[ 0 ] June 3, 2007 | davenoon

One of the great injustices in Curtis Mayfield’s short life was that he was forced by circumstance to share his birthday with Jefferson Davis, the former Mississippi Congressman and Senator who served as President of the Confederate States of America from 1861 to 1865.

Born to modest means in Kentucky, Davis married well — first to the daughter of General (and future President) Zachary Taylor, then (after his first wife died of malaria) to the daughter of a wealthy cotton planter, from whom Davis would acquire considerable wealth and social standing. A graduate of West Point, Davis fought in the American war against Mexico; after the war concluded, Davis strove to ensure that the beloved institution of slavery could be extended into the conquered lands. He was a determined opponent of the Compromise of 1850, which admitted California to the union as a free state, and while he continued to insist throughout that ominous decade that secession was inadvisable, he held these views only so long as he believed the Southern states could maintain the political hegemony they had enjoyed since the nation’s founding.

When it became clear to Davis and others that the “zealots” of the North would not guarantee slaveholders the Western lebensraum they believed necessary for the survival of “liberty,” they invented an array of legal and historical fables to justify the secession of eleven Southern states. Like most Southern elites, Davis believed slavery to be sanctioned by God. However, his views on slavery were more peripheral to his overall ideology than other Confederate leaders — including his Vice President Alexander Stephens, who believed slavery was the “cornerstone” of the Confederate nation. Ultimately, Davis’ rhetorical preference for an abstract “states’ rights” philosophy would provide later generations of Confederate apologists with a valuable alibi. They could point to Davis’ record as “evidence” that the Confederacy was not founded on racism and human bondage.

After his state voted to leave the union, Davis resigned his Senate position in January 1861, warning his colleagues that they should simply allow the Confederacy to live apart and in peace.

If you desire at this last moment to avert civil war, so be it; it is better so. If you will but allow us to separate from you peaceably, since we can not live peaceably together, to leave with the rights we had before we were united, since we can not enjoy them in the Union, then there are many relations which may still subsist between us, drawn from the associations of our struggles from the Revolutionary era to the present day, which may be beneficial to you as well as to us.

If you will not have it thus–if in the pride of power, if in contempt of reason, and reliance upon force, you say we shall not go, but shall remain as subjects to you–then, gentlemen of the North, a war is to be inaugurated the like of which men have not seen . . . .

Is there wisdom, is there patriotism in the land? If so, easy must be the solution of this question. If not, then Mississippi’s gallant sons will stand like a wall of fire around their State; and I go hence, not in hostility to you, but in love and allegiance to her, to take my place among her sons, be it for good or for evil.

Reluctantly, Davis accepted the office of presidency; his leadership was widely regarded at the time as uninspired and ineffective, with critics deriding him as an autocratic federalist. Critics insisted his military command was unwise. Nevertheless, by the time he went toe-up in 1889 Jefferson Davis was celebrated as an enduring hero of the Lost Cause. Today, commemorative statues of him are littered throughout the South, and several states acknowledge his birthday as a legal holiday. In 1978, a Mississippi Congressman named Trent Lott led a successful push to have political rights restored to Davis’ corpse, which has since elected not to exercise those rights.

Not That!

[ 0 ] June 3, 2007 | Scott Lemieux

Shorter Verbatim Rudy Giuliani: “[Letting Bush's upper class tax cuts expire] would be an astounding, staggering tax increase. She wants to go back to the 1990s.”

What a nightmare that would be!

A preview of the 2008 Republican platform is here.

Tragedy

[ 0 ] June 2, 2007 | Scott Lemieux

Steve Gilliard has passed away. It seems inconceivable to me, and he will be missed sorely by all who knew him. Condolences to his friends and family, who provided such staunch support throughout his illness.

…Jane has a remarkably eloquent tribute.

…Julia, TPNH, and the Talking Dog remember. Jill offers a reader’s perspective. Kevin has a terrific post with a comprehensive roundup of links.

I hate to point this out, but . . .

[ 0 ] June 2, 2007 | davenoon

Jewel’s talent, no matter how much you disparage it, has made thousands, and millions of people happy. That’s a pretty good accomplishment for anyone. And what have you done? Established for a crowd of hundreds that Ann Althouse is a moron? Congratulations, you should be proud of yourself.

– The World, 25 May 2007

Althouse, 2 June 2007:

Don’t fall into the lazy blogger approach of calling your opponents f*ckwits and assh*les. It was never good writing. It’s a cheap way to seem spicy, and it may seem cool to some readers, but it doesn’t show off your skills even now, when you’re just getting started writing. The fact that later it may screw up the career you’re trying to promote is a huge other reason not to do it, but it was never good. Think of better, more original ways to express yourself. You should want to distinguish yourself through writing. Calling people assh*les… it’s been done.

Althouse, 8 February 2007

Well, Scott, I see a tiny little image that looks like this: d. I was under the impression that that was a picture of a tiny little prick, and I thought it was you. I’ll take your word for it that I was wrong and that despite your loathsomeness, you’ve managed to find other little pricks who are willing to associate with you. I have corrected my post to indicate that it was not you. Now, have you corrected your vicious stupidity, you pathetic little man?

So sorry . . . so very, very sorry . . .

Fortunately, It’s An Easy Job

[ 0 ] June 2, 2007 | Scott Lemieux

Marcy: “you’ve got to feel sorry for Mike Allen and the Politico. He’s not going to be the same reporter without his best source.” Indeed. Of course, when your job is to be a stenographer rather than journalist, you just have to wait for the next flack to be appointed and you’re back in the game…

Michael Kay Whore Watch

[ 0 ] June 2, 2007 | Scott Lemieux

With things already looking bad, I had to keep turning away from yesterday’s Sox/Yankees fiasco because Kay wouldn’t shut up about poor Slappy and how he’s being unfairly criticized. I even think that the play in question, while bush league, wasn’t quite as heinous as many others do. (I’m much more upset about Proctor intentionally skulling the Greek God of Walks.) But then I turn back in the eight inning, and Kay is not only still pissing and moaning about it, but ups the ante by claiming that Slappy has been “vilified”…while players who used steroids get a complete pass! As Singleton–someone who actually belongs in a major league broadcast booth–gently tried to point out, the moralistic hysteria about players accused of using steroids could scarcely be higher (cf. any time Barry Bonds steps to the plate), but Kay was adamant. If not sure if it’s quite as pathetic as Bubba Crosby: Fastest Man In Baseball!, but it’s up there. Having to listen to this is almost enough to make the pending Fox broadcast today tolerable. Almost.

I also note that Fox is buying ads for its feeble “comedy” The 1/2 Hour News Hour on Al-Yankeezera. Hey, they know their market: the Yankees are certainly a team for Republicans, and Michael Kay is about as aesthetically distinguished in his field as Joel Surnow is in his…

Page 1,330 of 1,712« First...1020301,3281,3291,3301,3311,3321,3401,3501,360...Last »

    • Switch to our mobile site