In 2011, having lost the World Series (to the San Francisco Giants) the previous year, the Texas Rangers were one strike away from winning the World Series—on two occasions. They lost the World Series (to the St Louis Cardinals). Today, as I sat watching in disbelief, the Rangers were one strike away from winning the American League West Division title. They lost the game and may yet lose the West Division title. It's embarrassing, humiliating, and disgusting. The good news is that the Rangers can still win the West Division title. If the Houston Astros lose either tonight or tomorrow, or if the Rangers win tomorrow, the Rangers win the West.
As for yesterday's game, which Katherine, Luki, and I attended, it was a classic pitcher's duel (Martin Perez versus Jered Weaver) until Mike Trout and Albert Pujols went to work. Triple; single; one-run lead. The Rangers lost to Los Angeles of Anaheim, 2-1. We went home disappointed, without bothering to stay for fireworks. Today, the Rangers were behind 5-1 at one point, went ahead 10-6, and lost, 11-10. Our pitching staff is depleted. (We used nine pitchers today.) I fully expect another loss tomorrow, which means the Rangers are counting on the Arizona Diamondbacks to beat Houston today or tomorrow. Is it desirable to back into a divisional title? No. But at this point, I'll take it.
Thanks for the report on Purify, one of two ad blockers that work with the iPhone and iPad. The time-to-load comparisons across websites, with and without the blocker, were so compelling that I installed the app immediately.
And, no, I had no qualms about the ethical conundrum in the reporter’s preamble: the software’s potential to cut ad revenue to a host of websites and thus undermine their economic viability.
Indeed, the Internet has destroyed so many print publications—sucked so many advertising dollars away from newspapers and magazines—that perhaps this software will lead to a turnaround. If ads suddenly become less effective on the web, maybe advertisers will return to, and re-energize, print.
As a college professor, I woke up in a cold sweat at 2 a.m., hours after our most recent mass school shooting at Umpqua Community College,imagining a young man with a big gun and a bad attitude standing at the door to my classroom. I asked myself what I would do: Flash a prearranged signal to Eric, an Army veteran who always sits in the front row, to try to take out the shooter, and hope that the class survives our attempt at heroics? Freeze in fear as the scene plays out in a hail of bullets? Get down on my knees and pray for mercy?
Tell me again that we live in a civilized country, even as such scenes have become numbingly familiar. Tell me that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The truth is that people with guns kill people. Tell me I may someday be released from this fear.
BRUCE E. JOHANSEN
Note from KBJ: What do you propose, Professor Johansen? If you ban guns, only the criminals will have guns, which puts us at greater risk than we are now. This isn't a slogan; it's a fact. Even if you could destroy every gun in this country (good luck with that), what's to prevent someone with evil intent from taking a bomb into your classroom, or simply locking the door and hacking everyone with a machete? By the way, if you don't like living in the United States, you are free to go to a "civilized" place.
With the world’s countries heading kicking and screaming into a climate meeting in Paris in December, and China announcing a woefully complex cap-and-trade scheme, we should be talking about carbon fees, which are as painless as they are effective.
A national carbon fee, if returned in its entirety as an equal dividend to consumers, would actually bring economic benefits. With one fair, transparent and comprehensive market correction, you reduce emissions, drive the transition to renewables, create jobs and stimulate consumer spending.
Even Big Oil has begun lobbying for a carbon fee. These companies reason that the world will soon do something about global warming, and out of the available options only a carbon fee provides a predictable framework for their future development (presumably into green energy). The majority of Americans and economists also support a carbon fee.
Solving global warming will not be easy. We will need to address population growth and rethink our economic systems. But the first, best step toward a solution—a simple, honest carbon fee—would be entirely painless.
The writer is a researcher in atmospheric science.
Note from KBJ: This man is perpetrating a hoax. The hoaxers are motivated not only by self-interest (there is big money at stake) but by political considerations (they hope to advance the progressive agenda and impose their vision of society on everyone else). Anyone who thinks that scientists are disinterested pursuers of truth is naive to the point of delusion. It's funny to hear progressives say that conservatives are "anti-science." No. We're anti-politicized-science. We want science to return to its roots in describing and explaining the world and to stop trying to change the world. We want a wall of separation between science and state.
The regular season is drawing to a close. All 30 Major League teams end play on Sunday afternoon. My adoptive team, the Texas Rangers, is in first place in the five-team American League West Division. I'm surprised (but extremely pleased) by this, because I expected 2015 to be a rebuilding year after the Rangers finished in fifth place in 2014, a staggering 31 games behind Los Angeles of Anaheim. Tomorrow night, Katherine, Luki, and I go to the Ballpark in Arlington to watch the Rangers play the Angels. Here are the standings in the A.L. West:
Texas Rangers: 86-72 (four games remaining)
Houston Astros: 84-75 (three games remaining)
Los Angeles of Anaheim: 83-75 (four games remaining)
The Rangers host the Angels this evening. Naturally, I'm wondering whether we'll see a celebration tomorrow night when we attend the game. By my calculation, we have a chance to see a celebration. Here are the alternatives:
If the Rangers win tonight, they will clinch a playoff spot and at least a one-game playoff (against Houston) for the divisional title. If they win tomorrow night as well, when we are in attendance, they will clinch the divisional title, in which case we will see an on-the-field celebration. (Houston's game will be under way when the Ranger game ends, barring extra innings.)
If the Rangers lose tonight, they will clinch nothing. If, having lost tonight, they win tomorrow night, when we are in attendance, they will clinch a playoff spot and at least a one-game playoff (against Houston) for the divisional title, in which case (presumably) we will see an on-the-field celebration.
If the Rangers lose both tonight and tomorrow night, then obviously we won't be seeing a celebration. Go Rangers!
Addendum: It just occurred to me (to my horror) that we may not see a celebration tomorrow night. Here's why (and how). Suppose the Rangers lose tonight and win tomorrow night while we're in attendance. Will they celebrate? Probably not, because the Astros will still be playing in Arizona. The Rangers will likely go into the clubhouse after the game ends and wait for the result from Arizona. Should Houston lose its game, the Rangers will win the divisional title and will, therefore, celebrate, perhaps going out onto the field to do so. The question then becomes: Will Katherine, Luki, and I wait around for up to an hour and a half? I can't believe we would, but you never know! (Also, will club officials allow fans to remain in the Ballpark for that long?)
Addendum 2: Katherine just informed me that tomorrow night is fireworks night, which means that many fans will be waiting around after the game anyway. Maybe the club will put the Astros-Diamondbacks game on the scoreboard while we watch the fireworks. The garlic fries are going to be especially tasty tomorrow night! (Please don't tell me that garlic fries are high in calories. Of course they are. I ride my bike at least 101.4 miles per week, every week of the year, for precisely this reason.)
Addendum 3: The Rangers won, 5-3. Hooray! Tomorrow night, with any luck, we'll see an on-the-field celebration.
The bodies of the Oregon shooting victims aren't even cold yet, and Barack Obama is trying to get political mileage out of it. "Take people's guns away!" The idiot doesn't realize that what we need is more guns (in the hands of law-abiding citizens), not fewer. The shooter knew that he would be shooting fish in a barrel, and that's exactly what he did. This president of ours is shameless in his political opportunism. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Addendum: Barack Obama just spent many minutes emoting. Nothing he said was grounded in reality or rooted in fact, and some of the analogies he drew actually undercut his position. We don't ban automobiles merely because people die in automobile accidents. Why would we ban guns merely because some people (the evil ones) misuse them? He is truly an imbecile. I am ashamed to have him as my president.