Think Progress (Achieve Nothing) calls our attention to this Fox World Series montage which preceded last night's broadcast:
Fox heralds Bush as a World Series ‘hero.’
Last night, Fox aired a montage prior its airing of the Red Sox/Rockies game that celebrated great moments in World Series history.
I deplore the revisionism at Fox, which included their highlighting, via a Hollywood re-enactment, of Babe Ruth's legendary called home run against the Cubs in 1932.
Back in reality, as covered at Wikipedia, it is a mater of controversy and confusion whether the Babe actually called that shot, or whether his gesturing meant something else. Allow me to reprise a key passage from the Wiki version and then repeat my attempt to contribute to Wiki-history. ZFrom the Wikipedia:
Ruth's second home run in game 3 probably would have been merely an exclamation point for the 1932 World Series and for Ruth's career, had it not been for reporter Joe Williams. Williams was a respected but opinionated sports editor for the Scripps-Howard newspapers. In a late edition the same day of the game, Williams wrote this headline that appeared in the New York World-Telegram: "RUTH CALLS SHOT AS HE PUTS HOME RUN NO. 2 IN SIDE POCKET." Williams' summary of the story included, "In the fifth, with the Cubs riding him unmercifully from the bench, Ruth pointed to center and punched a screaming liner to a spot where no ball had been hit before." Apparently Williams' article was the only one written the day of the game that made a reference to Ruth pointing to center field. It was probably due to the wide circulation of the Scripps-Howard newspapers that gave the story life, as many read Williams' article and assumed it was accurate. A couple of days later, other stories started to appear stating that Ruth had called his shot, a few even written by reporters who were not at the game.
Hmm. The Times archive includes this contemporaneous account, which does not specifically cite a gesture to centerfield but is otherwise clear:
But it seems decidedly unhealthy for anyone to taunt the great man Ruth too much and very soon the crowd was to learn its lesson. A single lemon rolled out to the plate as Ruth came up in the fifth and in no mistaken motions the Babe notified the crowd that the nature of his retaliation would be a wallop right out of the confines of the park.
And while we are sifting their archives let's toss in some coverage of Bush's night at the World Series. The Think Progress folks would do well to remember that not everyone hated Bush in October 2001, nor was everyone certain that baseball could continue as usual.
I remember Bush's appearance as heroic. No one knew for certain that he'd be safe in the middle of that vast stadium so soon after 9/11 and his pitch was perfect. It was great for morale.And worth remembering.
Posted by: clarice | October 28, 2007 at 01:12 PM
And the President's pitch was even more impressive compared to Kerry's pitches at Fenway in 2004.
Kerry had to move up closer because he couldn't pitch from the mound.
Then when his first pitch hit the dirt, he claimed he didn't want to throw it so hard that it might hurt someone.
To think that this guy would have been President if it weren't for my state!
Posted by: PaulL | October 28, 2007 at 02:01 PM
And the President's pitch was even more impressive compared to Kerry's pitches at Fenway in 2004.
Kerry had to move up closer because he couldn't pitch from the mound.
Then when his first pitch hit the dirt, he claimed he didn't want to throw it so hard that it might hurt someone.
To think that this guy would have been President if it weren't for my state!
Posted by: PaulL | October 28, 2007 at 02:01 PM
I find it ironic that history is determined by press reports of the day. Someone once noted that freedom of the press is limited to those who own one. Think about it...a reporter writes his version of what an eyewitness describes. The eye witness dies and any discrepancies between the eye witness version and the reporter’s version go away. The reporter’s version survives...unless someone can find the eye witness account.
Here’s a personal eye witness account of something that actually happened but has been denied by hundreds of press reports: the Gulf of Tonkin incident involving the USS MADDOX that led to President Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam “war”.
I was there…at 3,000 feet and twenty miles away in a Navy E1B aircraft equipped with a powerful radar. I directed strike aircraft to protect our ships as I saw raw video on the radar scope of at least 12 small boats darting in and around the USS Maddox. I also established relay communications with the USS Ticonderoga and heard the combat information officer aboard the USS Maddox report multiple torpedoes running under the ship. The only reason they did not sink her was the fact that the Maddox was at the end of her time on station in the Gulf of Tonkin and was low on fuel so was running high in the water. The torpedoes were set to run at a depth too low to hit her.
I have a letter of commendation for my actions that night from Admiral Roy L. Johnson to prove the above. You’ll find it in Navy records as Ser: 002-1406 dated 12 October 1964.
I subsequently served two tours in Vietnam and was awarded a chest full of medals. Two of those medals were from President Johnson who, as you might recall, caved in to public polls and MSM pressure and gave up.
Another example of a Democratic politician praising heroism without showing any. And another example of how press reports will distort and even ignore actual events.
Posted by: F. Siegler | October 28, 2007 at 03:04 PM
PaulL
Well said (and worth saying twice)
F. Siegler
It's frustrating for all of us who know the truth amidst the lies, and it must be doubly so for folks such as yourself, who were there.
Posted by: Uncle Bigbad | October 28, 2007 at 03:53 PM
PaulL -- Well said, thrice. As I recall, Bush pitched a perfect strike from the mound, wearing a kevlar vest.
Kerry is, and always will be, a douche.
Posted by: capitano | October 28, 2007 at 04:58 PM
Israel responds (or at least they should) .. if you don't know, we're not going to tell you
Posted by: Neo | October 28, 2007 at 06:26 PM
That's an eyeroller of the highest degree.
Posted by: jpe | October 28, 2007 at 06:45 PM
an eyeroller of the highest degree
-what degree is that? PhD?
As I'm sure jpe wants to remind us, everyone has always hated Bush. No one but Bush ever thought Iraq had connections to terrorists, or an interest in WMDs. We have always been at war with Eastasia. These are not the droids you're looking for.
Posted by: bgates | October 28, 2007 at 07:44 PM
Right now, at this time and place, shouldn't we all be marveling at the Red Sox? Can't we all simply unite over Manny and Papelbon, Beckett and Lowe?
All together now....
Posted by: Jane | October 28, 2007 at 08:02 PM
bgates:
Orwell's 1984 just seems to have nailed it more and more as time passes.
Especially I am frequently reminded of the "memory hole." We can usually call up the original statement or article on the internet, but Democrats pretend like that is irrelevant. Witness Harry Reid denying he said the California fires were caused by global warming, just hours after he said it.
I don't know if it's necessary to expunge the old documents when the lying MSM gives Reid a pass on everything he does. Why hasn't the NYTimes run stories on the front page for 52 days straight about Reid's corrupt land deals in Vegas, like they ran stories on Abu Ghraib? What about the WashPost--surely a corrupt Speaker of the House warrants a few months of stories if the name "macaca" was worthy?
Posted by: PaulL | October 28, 2007 at 08:33 PM
Are you on crack? I was mocking the insane assertion that there was a risk there'd never be baseball after 9/11, as if the MLB would fold from despair. In the words of Ralph Wiggum, you're a grade A moron.
Posted by: jpe | October 28, 2007 at 09:10 PM
I was mocking the insane assertion that there was a risk there'd never be baseball after 9/11,
Who made that assertion?
Posted by: MayBee | October 28, 2007 at 10:44 PM
"you're a grade A moron."
Around here it is "maroon"
--and what's the deal with JMAX? Been voting my fingers to the bone and she's not moving up in percentage.
Posted by: glasater | October 28, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Anyone following the Colbert campaign?
One of my law school classmates has an interesting take:
Posted by: Walter | October 29, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Now, jpe, try to be civil, or after my next date with your mother I'm going to have to come down to the basement and give you a little talking to.
"a risk there'd never be baseball after 9/11" seems like a misreading of "nor was everyone certain that baseball could continue as usual". Not a misreading 'of the highest degree', but maybe a brown-belt level misreading.
Posted by: bgates | October 29, 2007 at 02:52 AM
Chief UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei Sunday accused Israel of taking “the law into their own hands” with a raid on Syria, and demanded more information about what was hit.
So now ElBaradei is also an expert on international law. What a Renaissance man.
Posted by: Barry Dauphin | October 29, 2007 at 09:14 AM
I was visiting my Dad on Sept 30, 2001, a beautiful day, and we drove by the White House, through an ANSWER protest, and then walked up to the Capitol. There was a group of Morris dancers and a dozen spectators at the foot of the hill. At the building itself, there was one policeman on each front and no one else.
It still amazes me there has been no follow up attack on us, or was it disrupted? How stupid can Bin Laden be?
Posted by: Ralph L | October 29, 2007 at 09:15 AM
Baptism, AKA 'waterboarding' is a smart bomb to the Cental Nervous System. Check out 'diving reflex'.
========================
Posted by: kim | October 29, 2007 at 09:27 AM
It is extension of combat by other means. It must be regulated.
====================================
Posted by: kim | October 29, 2007 at 09:28 AM
It seems the UN and El Baradei have as purpose to enable the Muslim bomb, perhaps in some MAD scheme to balance the infidels' hegemony. They should be shocked that the US and Israel don't share information with them?
I can't wait until the politically active arabists, Val Plame and Joe Wilson, are connected to the effort.
=====================
Posted by: kim | October 29, 2007 at 09:35 AM
Remember to keep voting. Cavalry has been summoned.
http://soccer.seniorclassaward.com/public/women/vote.aspx>Vote for JMAX!
Posted by: Gmax | October 29, 2007 at 09:48 AM
F. Siegler:
There is no doubt that those in the water at the Gulf of Tonkin thought they were under attack. Your post and the after action reports by the Ships involved attest to that.
There are contradicting reports. Admiral Stockdale had a flight of aircraft in the area and saw nothing. I do not know whether this information was avaialable at the time the White house decided to escalate.
The tapes of the ships sonar/radars were flown to the CIA (Technical Intelligence) for evaluation. The CIA did review the tapes and came to the conclusion that the information was erronious because of the depth the ships were operating and the sea state. This information was not taken into account when the decision was made to escalate because the White House would not wait the extra hours needed to undertake the evaluation.
Posted by: davod | October 29, 2007 at 09:48 AM
CIA had more expertise with sonar and radar than the Navy? Or were they more trustworthy?
Posted by: Ralph L | October 29, 2007 at 10:47 AM
NEL would know best.
==================
Posted by: kim | October 29, 2007 at 11:47 AM