Alex Bregman's On Deck Circle Injury Gave Me Flashbacks to Juan Encarnacion

 

During this afternoon's game between the Chicago Cubs and the Cincinnati Reds, Cubs third baseman lex Bregman was hit in the face with a foul ball near the on deck circle and has been hospitalized. 

In the fourth inning, Cubs first baseman Michael Busch was facing Reds reliever Luis Mey when Busch fouled off a pitch which bounced and struck Bregman in the face. Bregman ran towards the Cubs dugout grabbing his face and was met the team's training staff who took him into the clubhouse. 

When I learned about what happened to Bregman, I immediately thought about one player - Juan Encarnacion. 

On August 31, 2007, Encarnacion, who was playing for the St. Louis Cardinals against the Cincinnati Reds (coincidentally), was standing in the on deck circle to pinch hit for reliever Randy Flores. Sadly, Encarnacion would never get to the plate as his teammate Aaron Miles lined a foul ball to his face off Reds reliever Jon Coutlangus.

Encarnacion's left eye socket was crushed. The Cardinals medical director, Dr. George Paletta, called Encarnacion's injury "the worst trauma I've seen." In an instant, Encarnacion's 11-year MLB career was over.

I can only hope that Bregman can avoid Encarnacion's fate. It is worth noting that Encarnacion was hit by a line drive whereas the foul pitch which hit Bregman bounced first. However, Bregman was standing a lot closer to the batter than Encarnacion who was standing in the on deck circle. 

In the grand scheme of things, I am surprised that these sorts of injuries don't happen more often given the close proximity between home plate and the on deck circle.

While the Cubs beat the Reds 9-1 and could earn the top NL Wild Card berth, it is cold comfort with the possibility that Alex Bregman's 11-year MLB career might have come to an abrupt end. At the very minimum, I would be surprised if Bregman would be able to play in the post-season. And even if Bregman does come back this post-season, he might do himself more harm than good in the long run even if he does earn another World Series ring.

Every Time I See All the President's Men There is a Further Erosion of Freedom of the Press

 

Yesterday, I went to the Brattle Theatre to attend a screening of All the President's Men starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford.

The film was being screened as part of the Brattle's Freedom of Speech Festival which is organized in conjunction with the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

The screening of All the President's Men was actually part of a double feature with Spotlight, the 2015 film about the Boston Globe's coverage of the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. However, I opted not to see this film partially because I didn't want to look at Mark Ruffalo's anti-Semitic face for two hours and partially because I planned to observe Yom Kippur a day early. 

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I saw All the President's Men at the Brattle last December during its tribute to Robert Redford. Of course, the anniversary of Redford's passing took place this past Wednesday which happens to be my birthday. So, I wanted to see the film to pay homage to Redford. 

Although truth be told, I don't really need a special reason to see a Redford film. Indeed, I saw The Natural at the Kendall Square Cinema less than a month after the Redford tribute at the Brattle. 

It must be said that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the release of All the President's Men. The film serves both as both a historic reminder of the Watergate scandal and the ongoing erosion of freedom of the press in this country. 

Only hours after I saw All the President's Men in December, Bari Weiss killed the CECOT story on 60 Minutes on the basis the report did not get on air commentary from the Trump Administration. When I saw All the President's Men yesterday, the Trump Administration had revoked the press credentials of CNN, MSNOW and Politico because Trump finds their coverage insufficiently fawning. Trump claims these outlets are "reporting Fake News" with "other Fake News media outlets to follow". 

This is not the first time the Trump Administration has pulled these shenanigans as when then CNN reporter Jim Acosta's press credentials were suspended in November 2018 when the Trump Administration falsely claimed that Acosta put his hands on a White House staffer. In point of fact, the Trump Administration doctored the video evidence. 

A federal judge would order the restoration of Acosta's credentials. As of this writing, CNN, MSNOW and Politico have not sought legal action to restore their press access. It very much remains to be seen if they will do so for fear of further incurring Trump's wrath.

Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso has defended Trump's decision claiming it isn't a breach of the Constitution arguing the press has an obligation to be fair. Barrasso also argued that Facebook and other social media entities had banned Trump from their platforms.

This is nonsense and Barrasso knows it. First, the Constitution says the government shall not abridge freedom of speech. The government doesn't get to decide what constitutes fair speech. Second, Facebook and other social media entities are not the government and are free to choose what appears on their platforms and what doesn't, right or wrong.

It is worth noting that All the President's Men does delve into the tension between media and government with clips of Vice-President Spiro Agnew and White House Press Secretary Ron Ziegler decrying the Washington Post's opposition to President Nixon's agenda. While Agnew, Ziegler and other figures within the Nixon Administration may have not liked the WaPo's coverage of Watergate, they did not attempt to abridge their right to publish the story.

During a speech at Colgate University yesterday, former President Obama made these comments:

My imagination could not foresee some of the stuff that's going on right now. I'm trying to think what would have happened if I had said, ‘You know what, Fox News? You're out of here.

Well, that's not true. In October 2009, during his first year in office, the Obama Administration saw fit to ban Fox News from a press pool interview. Consider this account from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:

Tension between the White House and Fox News continued to mount this week after broadcast bureau chiefs in Washington refused to go along with the Obama’s administration’s attempt to squeeze Fox News out of an interview.

Despite the administration’s pledge to play nice earlier this week, the White House tried to exclude Fox News – alone among the five White House “pool” networks – from interviewing executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg on Thursday.

After CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC balked at the plan Tuesday, ABC News’ Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the appropriateness of the administration’s saying that Fox News, which he called “one of our sister organizations,” is “not a news organization.”

Gibbs said, “We render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.”

When Tapper asked how Fox News was different than other media organizations, Gibbs invited him to watch the network with him one evening.

On Wednesday, NBC’s Savannah Guthrie interviewed Obama about the propriety of his administration’s stance on Fox News. “We’re going to take the media as it comes,” Obama said. “And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing, and if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another. But it’s not something I’m losing a lot of sleep over.”

Robert Gibbs is no different than Senator Barrasso in critiquing the fairness of Fox News' coverage as grounds to hinder press access to the White House. Obama decrying Fox News as "talk radio" is not substantially different than Trump crying "fake news." Again, the White House, whoever the occupant, does not get to decide what is and isn't fair coverage. While it is true that the Obama Administration hasn't gone nearly as far in restricting press freedom than the Trump Administration, it certainly opened the door.

A few words about Watergate are also in order as it pertains to the present day. Back in June, Vice-President JD Vance spoke at the Nixon Library and downplayed Watergate:

If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be a 12-hour news story. The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy.

If you look at the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon, it’s not all that different from what the same groups of people, the same institutions, tried to do to Donald Trump in the first administration. There is a parallel.

Loathe as I am to say it, Vance is partially correct. Then again, Nixon himself believed the break-in at the DNC would be forgotten within a matter of days. Nevertheless, Vance is right to say that if Watergate were to happen now, it would essentially be a footnote. After all, the twice impeached Trump has done far worse things up to and including preventing the peaceful transition of power. I don't think there is any force on Earth that would compel Trump to resign his office. Not if one is building an addition to the White House which is three times the size of the White House.  

But Vance is completely bonkers to suggest the so-called deep state tried to take down Nixon. On the contrary, Nixon and the CIA were in cahoots to coverup the Watergate burglary because it was larger part of covert operations in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War as revealed in the Pentagon Papers.

Nixon was the author of his own demise just as Trump was for both of his impeachments. The only difference is there was no Republican delegation led by Barry Goldwater to tell Trump he needed to leave. Not that Trump would have listened. After all, Goldwater and company were telling Nixon to resign to spare him from impeachment. Trump wears his two impeachments as badges of honor and the country let him get away with it.

While All the President's Men is an important film with historical significance, I am afraid that this country is not good at teaching history much less learning or understanding it. I shudder to think what could happen to freedom of the press the next time I see All the President's Men in a theatre.

Some Thoughts for Michael P. Desronvil, The Holdout Juror in the Lindsay Clancy Trial

 

Michael P. Desronvil, the lone juror who voted to convict Lindsay Clancy earlier this month, has evidently spoken. Or has he?

Desronvil purportedly issued a written statement to NewsNation which reads, "Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”

That seems reasonable enough. But this statement is clouded by people who Desronvil has ostensibly hired to speak on his behalf. An attorney Edward Paltzik issued a statement on behalf of Desronvil which reads:

This American Hero and Champion of Justice loves the United States of America as the greatest country in the world; cherishes our sacred Constitution as the pinnacle of human liberty; and supports our amazing leader, President Donald J. Trump, as a fellow defender of common-sense, liberty, and sanity.

Desronvil also purportedly had an off-camera interview with a YouTuber named Ray Marcel who claimed:

We started talking. [Desronvil] thinks he knows why he might be getting targeted. He’s a Republican. He is a black Republican. He has conservative views. 

He believes he might be getting targeted because of that, because the media and the reporters, as you would see, they kind of have left views. He was on a juror panel with people of the Democratic party.

And this is also why some people are shocked that it’s a black guy that stood his ground and not only that the world is going to be shocked now that it’s a black guy who was a Republican.

If these are Desronvil's views, then fine. I would just hate that someone claiming to speak on his behalf ends up misrepresenting those views. This isn't to say that Desronvil might hold conservative views and support President Trump. But if this is the case, then how does Desronvil know he is being targeted for being a Republican? And how does he know the remaining jurors are all Democrats? The only way his fellow jurors could know that he is a Republican is if he told them during jury deliberations and those political differences became part of the jury deliberations.

The best thing Desronvil could have done was to stick to his statement to NewsNation and that he voted to convict because he thought the prosecution had proved the case against Clancy beyond a reasonable doubt. Period. Bringing politics (whatever his ideological inclination) into it only darkens already muddied waters. 

And what if Desronvil wasn't a Republican? Would a pro-Trump attorney still call him an American hero and a champion of justice? Would that YouTuber have given him the time of day? I cannot help but think that these pro-Trump folks are just using Desronvil for their own ends even if he happens to be pro-Trump.

As I previously argued last week, I identify with Desronvil because of my own unpleasant experience as the lone holdout on a jury and have a strong admiration for him for sticking to his guns.

There is no question that Desronvil has been through an ordeal given how criminal allegations which were never substantiated have been used against him. This despite the fact at least one juror who voted to acquit Clancy was also charged with an offense which was not substantiated without being dragged through the mud.

So, I can understand how Desronvil wants to tell his side of the story. But had I remained a holdout juror in my own case and my decision to holdout led to a public outcry, I would tell my own story rather than let others tell it for me. I would write my own account of what had happened with the hope that account could be told in a publication with a reach far wider than this modestly kept blog. 

Of course, that is easy for me to say. After all, I did end up voting convict. 

Right or wrong, Michael P. Desronvil has the courage of his convictions.

JD Vance Does Tucker Carlson's Bidding With US Foreign Policy "Cannot Be Subservient to The State of Israel" Claim

During a speech in Los Angeles yesterday, Vice-President JD Vance did Tucker Carlson's bidding with this remark:

[We have] a lot of important relationships, a lot of important partnerships in NATO, but that doesn’t mean we’re gonna completely make our European foreign policy subservient to NATO, in the same way that we cannot let our Middle Eastern foreign policy be subservient to the State of Israel.

Well, that's an anti-Semitic dog whistle if I ever heard one. 

At the very minimum, it is a straw man argument. Because during the course of his remarks, Vance maintained of President Trump:

I think that more than frankly any president in the last 40 years, he has shown a willingness to actually part ways with Bibi Netanyahu when he feels like the interests of the American people are different from the interests of the government of Israel.

For starters, although Netanyahu is the longest serving Prime Minister in Israel's history, he has not held that office for 40 years. Vance also seems to have a short memory where it concerns President Obama's relationship with Bibi particularly concerning Iran. If U.S. foreign policy was subservient to the State of Israel, then how did the Iran nuclear deal ever come to pass?

But it is also interesting that Vance did not see fit to use the phrase "we cannot let our Middle Eastern foreign policy be subservient to the State of Qatar". 

You know, the country which donated Trump his new Air Force One. 

The country which several current and former members of the Trump Administration worked as lobbyists for Qatar and has twice as many registered foreign lobbyists in this country than Israel. 

The country which has long harbored Hamas. 

The country with which the Trump Administration was happy to discuss Israel's future along with Egypt and Turkey while conveniently ignoring Israel in the process. 

Vance stating the U.S. foreign policy must not be "subservient" to Israel is a small step removed from Carlson's claim that this country (and specifically President Trump) is a "slave" to Israel. 

This is merely Vance's effort to legitimize anti-Semitism as part of our mainstream political discourse including denial there is an anti-Semitism problem in this country. Let us not forget that Vance went along with Joe Rogan's unsubstantiated claim that Jeffrey Epstein was part of Mossad.

Needless to say, we can expect more of this from Vance especially if he makes a White House bid in 2028. While it is certainly disturbing that Democrats are falling all over themselves doing the genocide gig, Republicans cannot claim the high ground against anti-Semitism if they insist on nominating someone whose dog whistle is every bit as loud if not louder.

Trump is No Position to Call The EU's Associate Member Invitation to Canada "A Hostile Act"

When the EU formally offered Canada the newly created status of associate member to its body yesterday, President Trump reacted with his usual lack of dignity and grace declaring the invitation to be "a hostile act".

For his part, Trump says he is considering more tariffs or to stop trading with the EU in some areas altogether.

Yet Trump is hardly in any position to decry the EU's offer to Canada as "a hostile act" when his entire political career, and for that matter, his entire business career has been a long series of hostile acts. 

These hostile acts include but are not limited to threats to annex Canada, seize Greenland from Denmark, tear down the Kennedy Center if his name is not on the building, launching missiles on boats in international waters and giving ICE license to murder American citizens in broad daylight. 

In the specific case of Canada why shouldn't its government explore other trade opportunities when Trump persistently declares, "We don't need Canada,"?

Trump's claim the EU invitation to Canada is "a hostile act" is a classic case of projection if I have ever seen one.

Well, with all the hostile acts that Trump has committed the time has come for him to get a taste of his own medicine.

Artists for Anti-Semitism: Thoughts on The Macklemore Incident

 

(Macklemore dressed up as a Jew with a hook nose in 2014)

Yesterday, hip-hop performer Macklemore was dropped from Ed Sheeran's tour following an incident which took place at the Meadowlands on September 4th. During the performance, Macklemore declared, "A big part of the ​reason why I wanted to do this tour in the first place is so I could ​stand up in stadiums like this and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart: 'Free ‌Palestine,'"

When I hear Free Palestine, I hear Kill Jews. It means more October 7th attacks.

It is worth noting that during this concert, Macklemore performed a song called "Hind's Hall" which he dedicated to Hind Rajab, a 5-year-old girl allegedly killed by the IDF in Gaza in January 2024. For its part, Israel has launched a criminal probe of her death along with relatives and paramedics killed during the incident. The proceeds of which go to the UN Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), an organization long known for its support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and which at least 9 staff members were involved in the October 7th attacks.

Let's keep in mind that Macklemore has a long history of engaging in anti-Semitic behavior such as when he dressed up as a Jew with a hook nose during a concert in 2014. Pink commented on this incident in the context of the incident at the Meadowlands noting Macklemore's apology for the former:

Every Jew I know knew exactly what it was. But he apologized, and I let it go, because that’s what we do. We let it go. Then last weekend he stood in front of a stadium full of music-loving families, with violent images from a war on the screens, dedicated a song to the movement of his choice, and then took the mic to tell all of the Jews in the stadium that it wasn’t about them. You don’t get to decide that for us.

It is very clear that Macklemore has a deep-rooted hatred for Jews. One does not wear a hook nose, donate song royalties to organizations whose employees were involved the single deadliest attack against Jews since the end of WWII and chant "Free Palestine" absent such attitudes.

Yet perhaps the most disturbing thing is how the other supporting acts on this tour are backing Macklemore and have withdrawn from it in support of him and his views. 

Perhaps Macklemore, Aaron Rowe, Beoga, and Lukas Graham could start their own tour and call it "Artists for Anti-Semitism". Roger Waters and Kanye West could make a special guest appearance.

Of course, had Macklemore saw fit to target African Americans, Latinos, the LGBTQ community or Muslims, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash were he removed from Sheeran's tour. But evidently denigrating Jews in the name of Palestine is what sends you to the top of the charts these days.

And because Macklemore targets Jews, AOC will stick up for him while bashing New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft (who is Jewish) in the name of perpetuating the lie of "the genocide in Gaza." Perhaps Abdul El-Sayed and Hasan Piker will go on a reunion tour in support of Macklemore.

Of course, with the increasing social acceptability of anti-Semitism, such a tour might end up selling out arenas all over the country. Arenas full of people who hate Jews and wish us dead does not bode well.

In The Absence of a High IQ President, AI Will Need Guardrails - Now

Over the weekend, Anthropic co-founder Dario Amodei called for the development of AI to be slowed down.

This comes only days after Jacob Coxon resigned from Anthropic and expressed dire concerns about how the pace at which both Anthropic and ChatGPT are advancing AI. In an interview Coxon stated, "It's doing God knows what, and producing stuff that could kill everyone."

Today, President Trump saw fit to weigh in on Truth Social stating in part:

The only control or “guardrails” that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!

Needless to say, Trump's flatulent self-flattery does not inspire confidence. 

If we did have a High IQ President, that President would be smart enough to be on board with reining in AI. But this is Trump with whom we are dealing. He doesn't care if AI could kill everyone. He certainly didn't give a damn about stopping COVID from killing over a million Americans. It was Trump who said, "If we stop testing right now, we'd have very few cases, if any." These are not the words of a President with a High IQ.

In the absence of a High IQ President, governments and tech sector will need to collaborate to implement AI guardrails as soon as possible. And by as soon as possible, I mean now. We might only have a matter of weeks to get a handle on it. Time is at hand.

Trump does raise the matter of China and its development of AI. If we restrain ourselves, it doesn't mean China will. But Trump advances this argument as if Amodei hasn't thought it through. Indeed, I doubt Trump actually read what Amodei wrote. Had he done so then he would know that Amodei calls for us to refrain from selling China AI chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment and chip smuggling operations. But since when does Trump operate in good faith?

I must admit that I have written precious little about AI. Perhaps I have been avoiding the inevitable. But it is a part of most workplaces including my own and will soon involve nearly every facet of life. My Dad talks to AI about baseball. The AI genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back in. So, either we control AI or AI will control us