OGTEleven

People I have known or confirmed: Anita Dickman Candice B. Sweet (HS teacher) Harold Richard Weiner (HS Teacher) and my personal favorite...... Ophelia Ras (last name pronounced Rass)

Seriously? How many nine year old baseball games have you seen? How many intentional walks in those games? I've seen about 150 with zero intentional walks. If the kid came up in sequence without an exception being made to get to him, I'd agree 100%.

So he was planning on being down one run in the bottom of the last inning with the tying run at third and two outs and his slugger due up? That guy is a genius. The other coach happened upon a situation, took advantage of it, and revealed his true (lack of) character. Then, after the game, he cemented the image by denying any knowledge of the kid's condition. You know, the kid that had survived cancer, visiited with the President of the United Staes, had to wear a helmet in the field and have his medication at the ready. Yeah, that kid. The other coach had no idea that there was something wrong with him. Baseball is baseball. He played within the rules. IMO, his priorities are beyond screwed. Hopefully that is the real lesson that the kids will learn. With that (and my other posts) said, I think Reilly is also guilty here. IMO, the coach deserves to take a lot of crap from the people in town. To have this thing publicized so every nut in the world can give him grief isn't exactly fair either. He's not Hitler, he's just a bullyish cowardly moron with no class. There are plenty of those to go around and most of them are not exposed nationally.

Pinch hitting is against the rules of the league. That is where the real flaw lies. Of course, they probably didn't think of it because they had probably never seen a 9 year old intentionally walked. Having seen my share of 9 year old baseball games and nary one intentional walk, I feel qualified to state the the intentional walk was not just an exception, but an extraordinary one. You're right about kids learning lessons through victory and defeat. I have no argument with that. The lesson here (for the winning team) of victory by any means necessary no matter how small the prize, is not a good one. Hopefully they'll see that when they are older and realize that their coach was a cowardly loser. It is more than likely that he has already given them thousands of other examples.

The root blame probably belongs with the design of the league. One team can use the strategy of the intentional walk and the other team has no way to combat it (by using a pinch hitter or whatever). Of course, they never thought of that because they had likely never seen somebody INTENTIONALLY WALK A NINE YEAR OLD. In a way this is a loophole. The first coach probably made a mistake in his batting order. The opposing coach decided to take advantage of the loophole. I think what the coach did, while legal, is incredibly bush league. I've coached a lot of baseball and cannot recall seeing a 9/10 year old walked intentionally in any situation. The kid was being treated differently in a negative sense because of the highly unusual intentional walk. They went out of their way to take advantage of him. I'm sure the kid has learned to handle adversity through his cancer. I'm sure he'll be fine. The coach showed a remarkable inability to handle the adversity of the opposing star being at bat at a key time. He ran from the adversity into the awaiting arms of a cancer victim. How brave. This coach probably always has and probably always will run from adversity. I especially liked his claiming ignorance of the kid's condition afterward. That was another brave move.

In the history of sports down to the 9/10 year old level, no team has ever made the finals with a bad player?

It says 9&10. I missed that too. It does say it is a level where all kids bat.

It must be. You can just burn it to DVD and sell it on the internet. I coached for many years in little league. I do not remember a single instance in which someone walked a better to get to another batter in a nine year old league. Maybe it happened. I think I'd really have to strain my memory to think of when someone was walked to get to the cancer victim. Sometimes dignity and class are more important than the task at hand. This is true in 9 YO baseball and in real life. As for the age cutoff....how about this.....when the other coach has an option of pinch hitting for the cancer victim. In this case, there was no option. He had to put the kid out there. Strategy works really well when the other team has no choice, huh?

Was that meant to be obnoxious, sarcastic or stupid? I can't tell. Which do you think is a better thing for the NINE YEAR OLD kids on the winning team to remember? A. Let's make sure we win by taking advantage of the cancer victim. or B. Let's try to win this like real champions and beat their best player. I'm sure everywhere these kids go in life, they'll have a choice of either facing competition head on or just waiting for someone in a wheelchair to happen along instead. They'll be well equipped to deal with this situation because of the bravery and valiant nature of their 9YO little league coach.

There is a stark difference between a government entitlement and rubbing an inability in the face of a nine year old cancer victim. The 9 year olds on this team will get 2 trillion more chances in their lives to watch someone win a deal or take advantage of a favored position. Most of the time this will be appropriate. They would have learned their lessons without seeing this one. But I guess 2 trillion and one is better than two trillion. Plus they get neato plastic trophies too.

Can you provide a link for this quote and/or anything similar that is not an editorial? Do you think Israel's intent is sport of some kind?

Here's what I would do..... Walk the stud hitter. Strike out the cancer victim. Celebrate with my team. Lie about knowing the kid had cancer. Oh, wait....that's been done. Since when does "baseball strategy" in a 9 year old league outweigh friggin human dignity? Oh yeah, always did. Never mind. How about he walks them both and pitches to the third kid just to call it even? Nah, he might lose. The 9YO championship is way too important for that. Just to be sure he should have had the kids do a cancer chant or something to make the kid nervous. If the kid really said, "I'll just get better at my batting until they have to walk me....." good for him. The dirt bag coach will never change. Reilly nailed it with this quote

How, pray tell, are they supposed to do that given the positioning of Hizbollah's fighters?

Why would it depress you? Billy and Bobby are preparing for life by playing Madden. Meanwhile, Achmed and Ayman are preparing for Billy and Bobby by playing with Nitro.

I think he is selling the "spiritual leader" thing. He's trying to build a team with chemistry. He has stated he'll stay out of the numbers and I think he probably has done that. By stating it over and over in the press at every opportunity, he can continue to sell the team to future players in his own way. He can point back to these conversations as evidence of the way he does business. You want to be here? Great. Go talk to Jim.

IMO some people = Moulds.

These are all excuses for Iran. We are the cause of neither their desire nor their sense of urgency. Their leader himself claims he is readying the path for the islamic messiah (not the exact term, but you know what I mean). If we weren't there he'd simply find another reason.

PJ and I have different politics. We are both well aware of this fact. You have misinterpreted my post. Let me re-word it for you. If the US was never on the face of the Earth, the current leaders of N Korea and Iran would still be pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening people with them. This is because they are megalomaniacs. Joe "cut them slack" by implying the US is the reason for these morons pursuing nuclear weapons. I disagree with that position wholeheartedly. In your post, you see a causal relationship between us being in Iraq and Iran pursuing nukes? Did they ever pursue nukes before we were there? The North Korean pursuit also dates Bush. What do you think these gentlemen would be doing as alternatives if we were not in Iraq? Perhaps picking daisies and helping old ladies cross the street?

Are you just being antagonistic or do you really believe people like Kim and AminananoIcantspellit are getting nukes because of the US? If the US never even existed, guys like this would still find an enemy and go after nukes. Stop cutting them slack they are not even close to deserving.

Ah....Beginner luck.

To the point I highlighted..... I never used the word most. I could counter by saying most pro-life people do not believe condoms are murder. To your overall points.... The answer to the question "When does life begin?" is invariably an opinion. This presents a quandary for government (one of the relative few government quandaries that are not self created by government). If you knew that life begins at conception, and you value life, it would be reasonable to try and protect life and have abortion banned. If you knew that life does not begin until birth, you would be reasonable in supporting abortion rights until birth. The reality is that no one knows when life begins, but many people on both sides believe they know (or at least belive the other side is wrong). Just because "most" people believe that life begins well after conception and well before birth, does not make it correct.

You can see examples of people like this everywhere. I know quite a few people with very strong incomes for 20+ years running (maybe top 8-10% each and every year) that have zippo for net worth. Boats, cars, pools, too big a house all on credit and voila, no savings. Others make almost identical incomes and forego some/all of the lavish lifestyle and end up pretty well off. Why should the two groups have any difference in retirement benefit eligibility?

Even though I posted an hour after you, we were typing at the same time. I had my window open and was paging in and out. I wasn't just being a macaw to your post.

I'm replying to your opinions in the whole thread moreso than just the one I've quoted. I disagree that the argument of "when life begins" is inherently religious. It happpens that current day arguments are often carried out by religious people but that does not make the argument itself religious. Certainly it is philosophical, almost certainly moral, and mostly carried out by reliogious/non-reliogious people. Science can also play a role, maybe moreso in the future. It would be great if it were totally scientific, but it certainly is not. No scientist, cleric or philosopher can currently be precise about when life begins. It is widely agreed that infanticide is wrong, and most people agree that using birth control is morally ok (i.e. a separate sperm and egg do not constitute a life merely out of potential). So pretty much everyone agrees on two things after that: 1. Life begins after sex/insemination 2. Life begins at or before birth. If the "right answer" could be nailed down then the correct law would be easy to decide. Which is the best way to nail it down? Scientifically? Morally? Philosophically? Majority rule? It's a very tough question and not just a religious one. You could be a reasonable person and believe that a fertilized egg has value as a life. If you believe this, then you would have a strong opinion that was anti-abortion. You could also be a reasonable person and believe life starts at birth. In this case, abortion during labor would be just dandy. Where's the right answer? Personally, I don't think I know with enough confidence to join a picket line for either side. But I do think I if I felt sure that I knew scientifically, morally, or philosophically, I'd probably join one of the picket lines.

Thanks. I knew the mailbox was the key. I even tried to trace using the poster with the colored circles. i found the color combinations odd and got fixated there. I should have thought of the letter more quickly. I'm sure I would have gotten the grey wheel eventually but you saved me time there. Thanks again.