San Fransisco Giants whine about rain-shortened game, win appeal

Giants whine about rain-shortened game, win appealThe Chicago Cubs beat the San Fransisco Giants Tuesday night 2-0 in a rain-shortened game. After 4 1/2 innings, the rain began to come done really hard. The Cubs ground crew had difficulty deploying the tarp over the infield because evidently it was put away wrong the last time it was used. The infield quickly became a soupy mess. After a 4-hour, 34-minute delay rain delay, the victory was awarded to the Cubs.

A regulation Major League Baseball game must go at least 4 1/2 innings. Anything less, the game must be suspended and continued at a later date.

The Giants filled an official protest with Major League Baseball, citing rule 4.12 (a)(3). The rule states:

(a) A game shall become a suspended game that must be completed at a future date if the game is terminated for any of the following reasons:

(3) Light failure or malfunction of a mechanical field device under control of the home club. (Mechanical field device shall include automatic tarpaulin or water removal equipment);

Even through the rule doesn’t say anything about a manual tarpaulin, the kind used by the Cubs, the league sided with the Giants. The game will resume this afternoon.

When a team files a protest with Major League Baseball, it’s usually always rejected. In fact, this is the first time a protest has been approved in 28 years.

Major League Baseball got this wrong. The rule doesn’t say anything about incompetent ground crews. If they want to include not putting the tarp back correctly the last time it was used as a reason a game must be completed and not terminated, then they need to include it in their rules. This wasn’t a mechanical failure, it was a manual failure. The rules don’t say anything about that.

A similar thing happened in a game between the New York Yankees and the Texas Rangers. The Yankees ground crew failed to get the tarp out in time and the game ended up being called in favor of the Yankees. The Rangers filed a protest and it was rejected by Major League Baseball.

If Major League Baseball is going to ignore the rules, they ought to at least be consistent.

Chris Kluwe, Vikings agree to settle

Chris Kluwe, Vikings agree to settleFormer punter Chris Kluwe and the Minnesota Vikings have reached an agreement that will keep them out of court over allegations that the Vikings fired Kluwe not because he was a sucky football player, but because he was a supporter of gay rights.

The agreement requires the Vikings to give an undisclosed amount of money to five gay-rights groups over the next five years. Kluwe will receive nothing.

I used to have a lot of respect for Chris Kluwe. Not only do I agree with him on the issues of marriage equality and everything related to the rights of gay people, I thought he was articulate and an enlightened dude. My respect for Kluwe ended when I read the independent review commissioned by the Vikings after Deadspin ran an article written by Kluwe, making allegations against the Vikings and their staff. From page 26 of the report:

Kluwe also made fun of the Vikings’ then Head Strength and Conditioning Coach Tom Kanavy, an alumnus of‒and former coach at‒Penn State University, concerning the Jerry Sandusky/Penn State situation. In his interview, Kanavy explained that Kluwe cut the seat out of his pants and then put them on to imitate a victim of the Penn State child-abuse scandal. According to Kanavy, Kluwe said that he was a “Penn State victim” and to “stay away” from him while his buttocks were exposed.

Here is how Kluwe responded to the allegation that he impersonated a victim of child rape:

The issue of child rape is a lot of things. One thing it’s not is funny.

When I read that, Kluwe seemed a lot less like an enlightened jock who wasn’t afraid to stand up for the rights of others, and more like a self-serving narcissist how took the issue of gay rights and used it to make a name for himself.

Phil Simms planning on not saying the word ‘Redskins’ during NFL games

Phil Simms planning on not saying the word Former New York Giants quarterback and current CBS color commentator Phil Simms has thought about it and he probably wont say the word “Redskins” during NFL games, even in games involving the Washington Redskins. CBS will be televising the Giants-Redskins game on September 25. If Simms is true to his word, he will go the entire game without referring to one of the teams by its name.

In other words, Simms will be collecting a paycheck without actually fulfilling his job duties. Being a professional color commentator means, among other things, that you have to specify the team you’re talking about when throwing down some color. Simms thinks he will refer to the Redskins as “Washington”. Can he even pronounce Washington?

Knowing Phil Simms, he will probably pronounce it as “Warshington”.

Simms’ in-booth partner, play-by-play man Jim Nantz, has a different attitude. He said that it was not his job to take a stance.

In other words, Nantz is a professional who plans on acting professional. Imagine that.

I think the controversy surrounding the Redskins name is silly. It’s been the name of the team since 1933. If the name is a slur, when exactly did it became one? For my entire life, it’s been the name of a football team, not a disparaging name for a person of Native American decent. I’ve never heard someone refer to someone else a “Redskin” unless they were a football player.

Words change. They evolve. It’s one of the reasons were aren’t all speaking Latin. Even if the word “Redskin” was a slur a long time ago, it’s not one now.

National Guard troops to deploy to Ferguson

National Guard troops to deploy to FergusonMissouri Governor Jay Nixon signed an executive order authorizing the deployment of National Guard troops to Ferguson. I’m not sure how that is going to help things. We’ve seen what happens when protesters throw Molotov cocktails at police. I guess we’ll get to see what happens when protesters throw them at National Guard troops.

My guess is that it wont be good.

One of the many autopsies to be done on Michael Brown, the unarmed 18-year-old black male who was shot by a white cop, shows that he was shot six times, twice in the head. All of the shots were to the front of the body, indicating that Brown wasn’t running away from the police officer as some of the witnesses have claimed.

I’m not sure if the truth or the facts even matter at this point. The collective narrative is that an innocent young man of color was shot down in the street , with his hands high in the air, by a racist white police officer. Anything that contradicts that, will almost certainly fall on deaf ears.

I don’t understand the Ice Bucket Challenge

I don't understand the Ice Bucket ChallengeYou know you’re getting old when you see stuff happen on the World Wide Internets Web and you don’t understand it. For me, this has been the case with the Ice Bucket Challenge. It’s where people pour a bucket of icy water on themselves, record it on video, and then challenge three other people to do the same. The three people challenged have 24 hours to complete the challenge. If they fail to do it in the allotted time, they’re supposed to donate $100 to ALS disease, research. If they carry out the challenge, they only have to donate $10. You’re also expected to post a video of your dumping to prove you did it and to publicly challenge three more people.

If I understand the Ice Bucket Challenge, and chances are, I probably don’t, people are choosing a bucket of ice water instead of making a $100 donation to a worthy cause. The Ice Bucket Challenge seems like a weird version of Truth or Dare, where the truth is donating $100 to ALS research and the dare is always a bucket of ice water and donating only $10.

If the goal is to get more money for ALS research, wouldn’t it be better if no one dumped ice on themselves? As far as I can see, this stunt only helps the ice industry, Big Ice, and Google, which owns YouTube. The Ice Bucket Challenge videos I’ve seen always start with a commercial for a cell phone provider or some car I don’t want to own.

ALS is a terrible and horrifying disease. Whatever money is put towards ALS research, it’s not enough. Personally, I’d like to see the United States take what it spends on military defense and use that money on finding cures for diseases like ALS. If we really want to spend money on defending people, we should spend it on stopping what actually kills them. The chances I’ll get killed by a member of Al Qaeda are really quite remote, but the chances I’ll get killed by cancer or heart disease are actually quite high.

Instead of donating $10 or even $100 towards ALS research, we should be pestering our elected officials to flip what we spend on military defense, $931 billion for fiscal year 2013, and medical research, $29 billion in 2013.

4zXxmuNThat of course will never happen, so I guess we should all just dump a giant bucket of ice water on our heads and call it a day.