‘You can’t help but notice’: World Series showcases dearth of Black players By Curtis Bunn
A very interesting article…. It was very insightful except for one little error….
“As the World Series plays out this weekend between the Atlanta Braves and Houston Astros, the glaring lack of Black players on both teams, and MLB in general, is not lost on Grissom. The Braves and Astros each have one Black player on their World Series roster: Terrance Gore of Atlanta and Michael Brantley of Houston. Most MLB teams had two or fewer Black players, and three had none at the start of the season. About 50 percent of the league, meanwhile, is made up of Latin players”
Let me help you out a little….
“As the World Series plays out this weekend between the Atlanta Braves and Houston Astros, the glaring lack of Black players on both teams, and MLB in general, is not lost on Grissom. The Braves and Astros each have one Black player on their World Series roster: Terrance Gore of Atlanta and Michael Brantley of Houston. Most MLB teams had two or fewer Black players, and three had none at the start of the season. About 50 percent of theleague, meanwhile, is made up of Latin players“
An unnecessary statistic. It gives the allusion that they are somehow being favorited or that the owners are of Hispanic descent and the players are not there because of their talent, otherwise the article was great.
The Supreme Court is taking up a case of concealed carry in the State of NY, one of the strictest states for carrying a weapon outside the home. This case will decide how people across the country can carry while in public and that decision will have ramifications across the country, I’m aware I said it twice. This case is not an easy case to decide and I don’t envy the Justices because no matter what you do or decide, you will have detractors. The left will cancel you, while the right will, well, maybe, riot and take over your court. This is definitely a lose lose case. No one will be happy with the outcome as one side will say that you didn’t go far enough and the other side will just say you got it wrong, that’s why I’m confused that they took it up in the first place. The best solution, in my expert legal opinion, which is equivalent to a drunk person trying to pee into a shot glass, I might get some of it in but most of it is going on all over the woman’s shoe next to me while she slaps the shit out of me, would be to kick it back to the State and let them make the decision for their borders. If people don’t like the decision, their are other borders to live in. This case is fraught, fraught I say, with pitfalls and backlash. Personally I believe that choosing who can and who can’t carry concealed is crazy because sometimes that is based on more factors other than stated. Money, in this case large donations, has it’s privileges. No bureaucracy is ever 100% legit. There is always a little corruption.
Plus, carrying concealed is kinda crazy. Florida is a perfect example of that. People get this courage that they never had before and they start to want to be defacto law enforcement. Looking for problems to solve. This is going to sound bad, but I am ex-law enforcement and in 20 years I carried concealed, while not working, maybe a total of five times. Excluding that one year after I retired. Never needed it. Didn’t even like to carry it while not working. Sounds crazy right. Like the young man doing somersaults at the party and dropping his service weapon that accidentally shot someone in the leg, I felt like it took away from my time with my family. Just the fact that I had it with me, felt like a burden. I understand for some it makes them feel empowered, but that’s the wrong kind of empowerment.
On the other hand, if you are going to allow concealed carry, then let everyone carry concealed. Like I stated prior, sometimes it’s bureaucratic nonsense that allows some people to carry and some people not to carry. Or maybe we just let elderly people carry concealed, those that hit retirement age, 67, and let them be the Wild Bill Hiccups of our generation as they squint through their reading glasses an unload a barrage of gunfire after you parked in their handicap parking spot. Their the ones that get assaulted the most. Or how about if everyone just kept their guns in their cars and houses and didn’t carry at all. The fact that you think that you need to carry concealed says a lot about your confidence in your fellow human beings, doesn’t it.
One thing is for sure, looking at history to decide whether to allow concealed carry is the wrong way to do it. They didn’t have cell phones in Wyatt Earp’s time. And I’m here to tell you that wireless technology might be more dangerous then guns. The technology out there these days should be considered when ruling on cases like this. People seem to get a little crazy around those wireless technology based items. Last thing anyone needs is a plethora of people that all of a sudden become “allergic” to wireless devices and go unhinged. Everyone knows what I’m talking about, thumbs tingle, palms itch, feet vibrate, noses twitch… It’s going to be a mad mad mad mad world, loved that movie, out there if you start to mix weapons with wireless technology. No… I say let each State decide for themselves. That’s the safest way not to let this snake bitten case come back and bite you in the ass, because they will blame you the first time someone goes unhinged and it will start to erode your credibility.
I don’t know how the Supreme Court is going to handle the current challenge to abortion, but, in my legal opinion, which won’t get you a cup of coffee even if you have the money to pay for it, the male judges should recuse themselves. I wouldn’t want to be the person telling a woman what she can and can’t do. If the ruling only affects women, shouldn’t only women be the judges? A man telling you what your duties as a woman are…. feels sort of 19th century. Most likely won’t happen.
I started this blog because of a rumor. It wasn’t just something that I dreamt of. Someone said that I said something which I did not say but somehow was said that I said it… which I, would like to make clear, didn’t say. Fact is, I can’t even remember what was said, but I didn’t say it. I think that’s the webster definition of rumor. I set out to set the record straight. In doing so, my blog morphed into something uncontrollable that has a whole 55 viewers, yay. Recently, I have received some criticisms of my blarticles. That’s fine. My blarticles are my way of coping with shit I don’t understand. I, by no means, state or even wish that you take what I say as gospel, it isn’t. I have never claimed to be perfect, I’m not, or even right, there’s a 50/50 chance that I could be completely off, that’s if their are two sides to the story, if there’s more, I’m screwed. If my blarticles, which are meant to be amusing at times, serious at other times, are causing you discomfort or to feel upset or angry, then I suggest that you tune out. There are way better things to read. Subscribe to your local newspaper would be my suggestion. I subscribe to the Washington Post and the NYT. The reason is because these entities are there to present unbiased facts, so you can make informed decisions. My blog is more the therapeutic writings of a sane man, some may disagree, but who is not all that smart. I’m wrong, sometimes, probably more often than I realize, but I have no problem admitting that. What I don’t understand is anyone getting upset, I’m a blog, not even a recognizable one. Death threats are unnecessary, as are marital proposals by the same dudes. This brings me to my next point. I was married to a beautiful woman and maybe one day I will remarry a beautiful woman. If this also upsets you or makes you uncomfortable or creates hate in your heart, I suggest that you once again tune out. This blog is never a referendum on someone’s sexuality but at the same time it seems taboo to say you are straight these days. I’m straight. Just ugly. But still straight. Dumb as fuck sometimes, but still straight. Which I believe might be the definition of the straight guy. I urge you, if any of the listed above items give you problems, please tune out, I can’t force you to do it, but I don’t understand why you would stay. Being angry at someone that doesn’t even know you, well, it’s crazy. I will say that my circumstances make me who I am now, somewhat a person looking for reform in a broken system, maybe they will make me something different as those circumstances… age, I think that my be the best word for it.
Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials.
A lot of people mistakenly believe this only applies to law enforcement, it doesn’t. It applies to anyone working for any government entity in the U.S.. It could be doctors, scientists, lawyers, groundskeepers, some federal contractors… as long as you derived your pay from a government agency, State or Federal. The problem with qualified immunity is that judges, who are also covered by this doctrine, have to see a violation of your rights for it this doctrine to be nullified and even then it’s a tough obstacle to get by if it doesn’t somehow state it explicitly in statutory or constitutional rights. I believe here is where an ipso facto doctrine should be made or invoked or placed into law. If the constitution was made to get rid of tyrannical behavior, then ipso facto, I like that word, it sounds funny, anyway, the ipso facto… anything that can be seen as illegal even though not clearly stated or defined should not fall under qualified immunity, or why did you make that freaking document, the constitution, in the first place. You know there is such a thing called the “spirit of the law” which means you do the right thing. Even if if the rules don’t explicitly say you can’t do something, because maybe it’s a new technology and it hasn’t been litigated yet, but you know it’s wrong, then doing it should end your qualified immunity, the reason why is because you are either a dumb dumb and shouldn’t be in that job, no malice, or just an evil asshole that should be in prison, with malice. Either way, qualified immunity is being tested but the problem, again, you are asking the government to hold itself more accountable, it’s going to be tough to do.
Ipso facto…. funny word…. latin for I’m drunk and can’t say is that a fact… right? No. It means by that very fact or act. In this case, by that very fact that the constitution was made to end tyrannical behavior, it should not be used to excuse it.
This WTF is truly unbelievable if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s completely true. I’m at home with my son, who was 12 at the time, spending time over my house after school before I have to take him to his mother’s house. He is on my computer, on his child protected account, while I was cooking dinner for both of us and watching some TV. I then get this image on my phone of a porn site, just popped up on my phone and I then look at my son, who was doing his homework and a porn site pops up on his account. He just sat there viewing what looked like a lady with big boobs. He doesn’t see me but I walk up behind him and say “what are you doing?” He looks up at me and says, “It just popped up”. I start to laugh because he was staring at these boobs and I say “let me see”. I then notice something unusual, as I scrolled through the images, I notice that these pics were of home movies, still shots. I know this because me and my ex-wife once decided to make our own movie, where both parties were aware and consented, just in case it needs to be said, and it had gone missing and lord and behold, their we were, unmistakable. This freaks me out a little so I keep scrolling and see another home movie still shot, of a young boy, mid teens probably, about to perform fellatio on another male, seemingly over 18, couldn’t really tell you. They were all home movies. I start to look for URL’s, website addresses and where could this have probably originated from but their was nothing that indicated the origin. I then check my son’s account settings and his settings were set to child, no adult content allowed. The young boy, who was pictured, was actually someone from the neighborhood and the guy, seemingly someone that thinks that a mouth is a mouth. This was reported to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as well as the State’s prosecutor’s office. Never heard from them again but I will still see these people that were pictured in those videos from time to time. The question that I obviously have is who would have a compilation of home sex tapes, I have a good idea who took mine, and how could qualified immunity protect you from showing that to a child or having a compilation of those home movies, some explicitly and undeniably illegal! Still have the computer for forensic testing. Just saying……
The spousal rule or privilege as it’s known, helps a husband and wife from having to testify against each other in order to keep marital harmony or bliss. The law differs in every State and the Federal government also has it’s own interpretation of it. This law applies to any criminal and civil litigation but it does not, at least in the Federal government, apply to administrative hearings, which all immigration cases are.
One of the questions that you are asked when you go before an immigration adjudicator is “where did you meet your spouse?” This question, while harmless, could lead to the destruction of a family, because if you met your spouse in the U.S. while they weren’t supposed to be there, then immediate removal is required and their chances of entering the U.S. or becoming a naturalized citizen have become almost nil, unless you can pay the hefty fine and are Bezos or Musk. The one thing about this exemption of the spousal privilege in administrative cases is that it disproportionately affects minorities, in this case Hispanics. This question only affects people that entered illegally through ground borders, not people that overstay a visa and it doesn’t affect people from Canada as they have unfettered access to the U.S. because of current mutual immigration policies and open border policies for Canadian citizens, which I completely agree with. This leaves only the southern border and the residents of the countries located there as the affected people. The adjudicator is careful to remind you that this is not a criminal proceeding but that answering any questions falsely could lead to criminal charges and fines and immediate removal, those charges do though have a statute of limitations, that’s why I can write this blarticle. The problem here is that if you met your spouse while she was in the country illegally and you have a child together, the government has determined that you have no protections. This change to the immigration policy is fairly recent and wasn’t around when the mass exodus of Europe to the U.S. was happening. The question, “where did you meet your spouse?” should have no role in the process. Are they just interested in your love story? No. Do they want to hear a romantic quip about how we saw each other across the room? No. (oddly enough though). What they are looking for, even though all kinds of criminal history checks are done both in the U.S. and from the country they are emigrating from, is a last ditch effort to not allow you entry. Being in the U.S. illegally, that’s prior to legal entry, disqualifies you from entering for 10 years for the first offense.
This country uses these people as cheap labor in numerous industries which helps keep prices relatively low, they even have laws that do not allow you to go to a business without a fair warning, in this case a week. This allows the business owner to prevent their cheap labor from being taken away. These people work endlessly but they are not suppose to fall in love or find a soul mate, they are supposed to be robots. That question, which could leave you open for intimidation and coercion for up to ten years by anyone that knows that person’s past, should be removed from the questionnaire. Some people even make it a business by charging these people massive amounts of money to either facilitate their marriage and/or keep their secret. Where they met should not be a deciding factor if they are eligible to be a family, it should be asked when making a biopic in an anniversary video to show their children and grand children about how brave grandma was.
The State Department has come to the conclusion that it was crickets that give you these headaches and memory loss and forever headaches/migraines. Their determinations are either made from not wanting to pay people money even though they put their lives at risk or because the U.S. does the same thing and applying or placing a law in the books might prove costly. It’s no secret that high energy weapons exist. Microwaves coupled with electromagnetic devices and/or whatever the hell their advanced tech weapons department, I’m guessing at the name, has come up with. It would be crazy for people to think that China or Russia have one upped us in this department. Those countries are playing catch up. To place something into law and then … say someone, in the U.S. tries to say that those symptoms are something they are experiencing, would be embarrassing and might circumvent any national security law if there is a law that states that these weapons exist. It’s a catch 22. They want to help, I’m sure of it, but they can’t state that the reasons for their ailments exist, at least not under any law. Maybe 50 to 100 years for now when people just say enough is enough. I don’t expect that lawmakers are going to convince the Executive branch to change their determination for now.
This is straight from the smart person, Google, where she/he tells me that….. “On Jan. 20, the nation’s largest insurer, UnitedHealth Group, reported its full-year 2020 profit of $15.4 billion, including $2.2 billion in profits for the fourth quarter, $3.2 billion in the third quarter and $6.6 billion in the second quarter.” And that’s profit alone during a pandemic. If we were to go to a government run health care system, like in most countries with way better health care, the government would not only have money for health care, it would have money for Social Security and it wouldn’t need to raise debt ceiling limits every four years and it would be cheaper for people because all the money gets pooled into one account instead of it being spread out to, how may companies, Google can you help me out….. ” In the United States, there are currently more than 900 health insurance companies that offer medical coverage.”…. Thanks Google…. That’s probably over 100 billion in profit alone every year. Better coverage, cheaper prices, better health care, save Social Security, maybe lower the over 20 trillion in debt that we owe? maybe…maybe not.
After reading the Washington Post article and thought how cool that whole conspiracy theory guessing game was, I thought I would give it a try.
Can you guess which of these statements are true?
The earth is neither flat or round, it’s actually a triangle.
The sun is made of American cheese, that’s why the Russians hate us, unlike the moon which is mozarella
A DHS Agent once overdosed a colleague with sleeping pills in an attempt to keep him from talking about criminal activity that he was involved in, same agent would then try and force himself on his colleagues wife after telling the other agent they were going to turn him in because they knew his wife was in the country illegally prior to their marriage, that same agent would then ignore his colleague about a possible terrorist incident because he was busy trying to find out what hotel a flight attendant was staying in, the possible terrorist incident, people involved, turned out to be tied to the December 2009 Christmas bombing, all while the agent was taking illegal steroids. That same agent would later seemingly hit on his colleague by asking him what was the size of his appendage. That agent is now retired early collecting a full pension. The other agent is retired with full benefits as well, even though he met his wife in the U.S..
Godzilla is real and running for President of the United States.
Alright, if you can’t guess which one is a fact, I’ll give you a clue, Godzilla isn’t running for President, she, most likely a she, is a fictional animal created for movies. One of them is 100% true.