Tonight is game seven of the World Series and unless this game sets speed records I’m not going to see or hear the end of it.

This has been a great series and I suspect this last game will be no different.  As a Red Sox fan I’m cheering for the indians on the principle that

  • They are the AL champions
  • I like Terry Francona
  • I want the team that eliminated us to win on the theory that I’d rather have lost to the champ than the also ran

But the reality is that we have absolutely no idea what will happen.  There is no other sport where the better team has a better chance to lose (Consider, the 1962 Mets, the worst team of all time still won 40 games, one out of every 4.)

The only thing we know for sure is either Cleveland will end its 68 years of futility or the Cubs will end the 108 year history of theirs.  That’s the good news.

The bad news is the baseball season ends today and we’ll have to go without for the next 4 months.

Either way it goes the end result will be excellent for baseball.






In the 1988 movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Steve Martin and Michael Caine play two grifters who prey on very rich people as the corrupt local police turn a blind eye. Rumor has it that Michael Caine modeled his character Lawrence Jamieson after real-life Claus Von Bulow, who had been in legal hot water over his wife’s insulin coma.

Under Lawrence’s tutoring, Martin’s character Freddie learns how to become smoothly urbane and elegant, so he’ll be more suited for the sophisticated scams,

So it was with the Clintons. They transformed themselves from two rather unattractive characters into people who tie up traffic after getting $1,200 haircuts ($600 for cut, $600 for color) paid by the proceeds of their influence peddling.

Victor Davis Hanson describes their evolution,

Long gone was the Scrooge-like need to write off used underwear as charitable tax deductions or to play 4-trillion-to-one odds in rigging a $100,000 cattle-futures profit on a $1,000 “investment,” or Hillary’s decade-and-a-half as a corporate lawyer masquerading as a children’s advocate. How pathetic the minor league Whitewater cons must seem now to the multimillionaire Clintons — such a tawdry ancient example of amateurish shakedowns when compared with the sophistication of real profiteering through the humanitarian-sounding, high-brow, corrupt Clinton Foundation.

Unlike Laurence and Freddie, Bill and Hillary are not fictional characters. They are, however, part of a rot that is bigger than the Clintons or Trump, as Juliette said,

And here’s something I don’t see many people discussing: the reason that Clinton was allowed to set up a server in her home in the first place and pass classified information through it. That no one blew the whistle on that is much bigger than who we will have sitting in the Oval Office in January.

It is especially astonishing when you realize that the FBI was in charge of security.

Ed Klein’s book Guilty As Sin (which I highly recommend) describes how the cover-up took place; the book, by the way, precedes the Wikileaks releases, but the Wikileaks confirm everything Klein asserts in his book.

As a results, as The Diplomad explains,

one of the last institutions held in high regard, the FBI, has been dragged into the political swamp created by the progressives. Another victory for the Alinsky brigades.

No matter who wins the election, we, the American people, have our work cut out for us.

faustaFausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.


Yesterday on WCRN Hank Stolz commented on the revelations concerning Donna Brazile funneling debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign which caused CNN to drop her (although apparently it didn’t cause CNN to devote a lot of air time to the story).

In the course of his comments he asked what would seem to be a logical question and I’m paraphrasing here: Why would she bother to do so?

Several of the questions could have been anticipated and were on topics that she was likely prepared for, that being the case, why would she bother to take the risk of scandalous behavior for a seemingly minimal advantage?

It is seemingly a very good question however the answer is very obvious: Why wouldn’t she?


  • There was apparently no reason to believe the people she contacted in the Clinton campaign would object to refuse or divulge the reception the inside information
  • There was apparently no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton herself or any of her debate prep handlers would would be passed this info would object to, refuse or expose her divulging inside information.
  • There was apparently no reason to believe that the any such person would give a tip to the media about the divulging of this information or apparently the media bothering to report on it.
  • And There was apparently no reason to believe that the media would pursue this question on their own.

She didn’t worry about the dangers of being caught because she knew that neither the Clinton campaign nor the media that supports it would have any inclination to try to catch or expose her but she had positive evidence that any attempt to claim that the fix was in would be met with universal derision and ridicule by the media.

In other words she had no reason to believe there would be any consequences for her actions so why shouldn’t she do these things?

It was only through Wikileaks  that this information came out, and this was something she did not anticipate nor did she have reason to do so at the time of her actions.

A better question for Hank to ask is this:  Given the complete lack of risk of exposure for these actions, how many years do you think people like Donna Brazile were “fixing” debates in this way?  As the Hill put it:

Americans now have reason to wonder about the other debates and who else in the so-called unbiased media world was seeking to assist the Clinton campaign by sneaking her a preview of questions or tilting the news in her favor. Such thinking is no longer cynical; it’s just realistic as we’ve seen just how widespread the corruption and bias goes.

And if people are willing to cheat in the debates, what else wouldn’t they justify cheating on to accomplish their ends?

Closing thought:  I have for many years publicly objected to wikileaks and anonymous and still do.  I don’t like hacking and believe in personal privacy.  The question is:  Given the fact that there is every reason to believe this illegal/immoral behavior would have continued unabated without these exposures,  can these actions be justified as a form of “guerrilla journalism” to keep our rulers honest?  Particularly give the fact that almost nobody in the MSM is asking the obvious question raised at the Hill, certainly not on TV anyways.

If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level