clark1mt

It's working.

Am I taking crazy pills, or did the Tigers just win?

Would have required replay to overturn the call, and that clearly wasn't going to happen.

Coming up: A 3-run home run by Carlos Correa.

Heh, that would have been nice to have realized a while ago. Instead I spent the whole game fighting to get Youtube synced with mlb.com.

The tag swipe was clearly missed (although there was eventually a tag on the leg/foot). I thought there was a little bit of question whether Hill really got the hand all the way down onto the plate, or just kind of skimmed an inch over it.

I hate the Rays and their clown-car stadium.

One more double to tie Cal Ripken, Jr. I hope he gets it against the O's.

Settled in to watch and got a sudden reminder that I'm in a blackout region for this series. Probably for the best.

It's both shocking and an indictment of the concept of a quality start.

And that's the ball game.

Well, they're just 4-9 at home, and 7-9 on the road. So I guess they'll win game 2.

She also was pretty good at that thing of cutting herself off and not talking through a pitch.

3001!

Well, that's nice.

And give up not only next year's $32M, but most of this year's $32M as well, representing 15% of his career earnings?

Setting up for 3000 to be a grand slam?

Cue the flashbulbs.

I'm available.

It doesn't really sound like it. She never mentions Biden by name in the whole exchange.

Meh, I'm not hoping to survive if it comes to nuclear holocaust. Survival post-nuke (at least, if it were all-out) would be worse than death. Which is good, because I'm close enough to the Beltway that I shouldn't make it.

We'd already been doing the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed at least as many civilians as either atomic bomb. The only difference is that it didn't happen all at once. So in that context, there would be no reason not to use the bomb. All you're doing different is saving time (radiation/fallout aside; not sure how well that part was really understood in 1945). That doesn't change the question of whether any of that was justifiable, but it does put the bomb in perspective a little bit.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Putin is buying Chinese support by giving away Siberian natural resources. And if Russia ruins its military strength by wasting it in Ukraine, there would be nothing much to stop China from then just coming in and taking it.

I think the expectation is still that a Russian military victory is inevitable (presuming that said military doesn't revolt). The hope is that Ukraine can make their victory as painful as possible, with the idea that Russian citizens won't tolerate sustained heavy casualties that will be hard to keep concealed. This would force Putin to have to abandon the occupation to save himself domestically. This also presumes that Putin's hold on power in Russia isn't so tight that he can get away with atrocities against his own people if that's what it would take for him to achieve his goals.

The U.S. was far more isolationist then, especially at the beginning of WWI and further extending right up until WWII. As such, the U.S. basically had no formal "allies" really until WWII and the aftermath. So there was no opportunity for the U.S. to fail to uphold their obligations there. It could be argued that the very existence of alliances like NATO have been enough to deter attacks on alliance members, thus serving their purpose.