Keith Burgess-Jackson

8-15-87 . . . Odds and ends: (1) . . . (2) Paul Molitor of the Milwaukee Brewers hit in his thirtieth consecutive game this evening. That’s the longest streak of the past decade and puts him over halfway to Joe DiMaggio’s record of fifty-six. But you just have to say it to realize how unlikely it is that anyone will break the Yankee Clipper’s record. Pete Rose gave it a try a few years ago with forty-four. (3) Mark McGwire, Oakland’s rookie sensation, hit his thirty-ninth home run today, which breaks the rookie record. McGwire, who has not hit many home runs lately, is on pace to hit fifty-five. If he gets hot again soon, the chase of [Roger] Maris and [Babe] Ruth will be on. [McGwire ended up with 49.]

I have a question for my Cheesehead friend Will Nehs, who keeps me supplied with news stories about Hillary Clinton’s cleavage, Newt Gingrich’s cojones, and other important matters, and who rags on me for, inter alia, self-insuring. How do you pronounce your last name? Is it Nehs as in “daze,” Nehs as in “mess,” or Nehs as in “sleaze”?

Only in the fevered mind of a moonbat could Hillary Clinton be viewed as a militarist.

Addendum: Could this be part of a progressive plan to portray Hillary as a centrist? Think about it. If she’s attacked from the left, then . . . she must be somewhere other than the left. I’m not sure Robert Scheer is smart enough to formulate such a plan, but you never know.

Like Johannes Kepler, the great astronomer for whom he has much admiration, Gingerich holds that “a staunch belief in supernatural design” does not contradict good scientific practice, even when science limits itself to tracing only natural causes, in a religiously neutral fashion, as Gingerich believes it must. Since the latter part of the nineteenth century—even earlier in the case of astronomy—science has operated on the assumption that scientific explanations involve only “natural” causes; that is, science is said to accept “methodological naturalism,” excluding from consideration any “intelligent,” let alone “supernatural,” causes. In recent years, some Christian scientists and philosophers have vociferously challenged this assumption, arguing for the necessity of appealing to intelligent agency to account for certain highly complex components of the universe, especially but not exclusively the cells of plants and animals.

(Edward B. Davis, “All Things Bright and Beautiful,” review of God’s Universe, by Owen Gingerich, First Things [May 2007]: 52-4, at 53)

Jeff Ellis has thrown his hat over the wall.

Manny Ramirez. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Here.

I feel sorry for the people of Venezuela. But maybe I shouldn’t, because they have it within their power to take back their government. Time will tell whether they have the courage to do so.

Both the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees lost today, so Boston’s magic number to eliminate New York is down to 38.

To the Editor:

In your editorial, you refer to Karl Rove as “the architect of so much that has gone so wrong with the Bush administration.”

Mr. Rove wasn’t an architect, but a consequence. His style of winner-take-all-the-goodies politics is perfect for the type of government that is popular today: big, generous, and taxing.

Of course, being generous means being generous to the favored, while being taxing means being taxing to the out of favor.

There are Karl Roves on both sides of any issue, because the same thing is at stake: will you be the beneficiary of big largess, or the one to shoulder the big burden?

Bill Decker
San Diego, Aug. 14, 2007

China must have a death wish. Could there be a better way to piss Americans off than by poisoning their dogs, cats, and children? See here for a New York Times editorial opinion.

Addendum: Our friend George Jochnowitz lived in China. Here is his letter to the editor of China Daily. George is responding to this column.

Here.

Caught Rudy, Mitt, and Newt last night. While all are better than Herself, Newt would wipe the floor with any of ’em if given the chance.

He was pushing to have the two candidates agree to a 90-minute “debate” every week from Labor Day (2008) right up until the election where the two would have at it for 90 minutes of give and take. A discussion . . . with little moderating. Let minds interact and avoid the clichés and stump speeches as they did in France earlier this year. Will the Elite allow/encourage it? Not a chance. They prefer sound-bites that appeal to the confounded.

Anyway, Newt again seemed at the top of his game and least prone to caterwauling and obfuscation. Is the germ of Newt hatred still potent? And have Newt and Fred waited too long? S— or get off the pot.

Will Nehs