San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, July 8, 2016

Ethnicity, White Racism And Income

In other to exploit the widespread opinion that racial tensions are running high in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika these days, and in the hope of getting some additional readership for my blog, I have decided to post an article to my blog today that explains the program of white racism that I am a willing participant in.  We white racists have made a commitment to secrecy as we carry out our programs of hate around the country.  Today I am going to break the white line and let you in on some secrets you no doubt are utterly unaware of.   Some of the things that I will write might shock you.  Others will probably enrage you but they are all true.
Whitey has been trying to oppress the noble black man for generations.  We have successfully convinced everyone that our program of racist exploitation targets all "people of color" but the fact of the matter is that it is the noble black man from Africa we wish to destroy.  Evil whitey utilizes a variety of programs to keep his boot on the throat of the noble black man.  We have created and perpetrate "institutional racism," whatever that is.  We have designed our reproductive process such that each new white child is automatically a racist by birth.  We control all of the financial means in the SDA and we use that power to keep the noble black man in poverty.  We have amazing powers of mind control and we use those powers to exploit the black man while we attempt to convince him that we are not evil.  We engage in thousands of micro-aggressions against the black man every day.  In short, we are very good at what we do.
To prove my point I would like to show you a chart that perfectly illustrates what I am writing. The chart can be found here.  The median household income in 2014 for whitey was $57,355.  With that in mind, please note the following chart of household income by ethnic/national group:  (I have cut and pasted the chart from the article so it is filled with hyperlinks that I did not put there.  I don't know if they will work but you are free to pursue them if you wish.)
  1. Indian American : $101,591[2]
  2. Taiwanese American : $85,566[2]
  3. Filipino American : $82,389[2]
  4. Australian American : $76,095[3]
  5. Latvian American : $76,040[3]
  6. British American : $75,788[3]
  7. European American : $75,341[3]
  8. Russian American : $75,305[3]
  9. Lithuanian American : $73,678[3]
  10. Austrian American : $72,284[3]
  11. Scandinavian American : $72,075[3]
  12. Serbian American : $71,394[3]
  13. Croatian American : $71,047[3]
  14. Japanese American : $70,261[2]
  15. Swiss American : $69,941[3]
  16. Slovene American : $69,842[3]
  17. Bulgarian American : $69,758[3]
  18. Romanian American : $69,598[3]
  19. Chinese American: $69,586[2]
    (including Taiwanese American)
  20. Lebanese American : $69,514[3]
  21. Belgian American : $68,767[3]
  22. Chinese American: $68,672[2]
    (excluding Taiwanese American)
  23. Greek American : $68,627[3]
  24. Italian American : $67,866[3]
  25. Ukrainian American : $66,957[3]
  26. Polish American : $66,948[3]
  27. Scottish American : $66,899[3]
  28. Welsh American : $66,531[3]
  29. Israeli American : $66,355[3]
  30. Slovak American : $66,296[3]
  31. Iranian American : $66,186[3]
  32. Danish American : $66,166[3]
  33. Swedish American : $66,119[3]
  34. Norwegian American : $66,041[3]
  35. Czechslovakian American : $65,807[3]
  36. Slavic American : $65,363[3]
  37. Czech American : $64,779[3]
  38. Hungarian American : $64,622[3]
  39. Turkish American : $64,617[3]
  40. Portuguese American : $64,002[3]
  41. Palestinian American : $63,864[3]
  42. French Canadian American : $63,847[3]
  43. Canadian American : $63,521[3]
  44. German American : $63,105[3]
  45. Pakistani American : $62,848[2]
  46. English American : $62,573[3]
  47. Irish American : $62,141[3]
  48. Finnish American : $61,980[3]
  49. Indonesian American : $61,943[2]
  50. Scotch-Irish American : $61,334[3]
  51. Nigerian American : $61,289[3]
  52. Syrian American : $61,151[3]
  53. Egyptian American : $60,543[3]
  54. Armenian American : $60,363[3]
  55. Guyanese American : $60,234[3]
  56. Vietnamese American : $59,405[2]
  57. Yugoslavian American : $59,336[3]
  58. Dutch American : $59,089[3]
  59. French American : $58,783[3]
  60. Korean American : $58,573[2]
  61. Ghanaian American : $57,029[3]
  62. Albanian American : $56,509[3]
  63. British West Indian American : $56,444[3]
  64. Barbadian American : $56,078[3]
  65. Brazilian American : $54,675[3]
  66. Laotian American : $53,655[2]
  67. Thai American : $53,468[2]
  68. Cambodian American : $53,359[2]
  69. Cajun American : $52,886[3]
  70. West Indian American : $52,876[3]
  71. Jordanian American : $52,191[3]
  72. Arab American : $52,096[3]
  73. Trinidadian and Tobagonian American : $51,670[3]
  74. Jamaican American : $50,302[3]
  75. American American : $49,605[3]
  76. Afghan American : $48,750[3]
  77. Hmong American : $48,149[2]
  78. Pennsylvania German American : $47,397[3]
  79. Moroccan American : $45,004[3]
  80. Nepali American : $44,677[2]
  81. Bangladeshi American : $44,512[2]
  82. Cape Verdean American : $44,394[3]
  83. Haitian American : $42,942[3]
  84. Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac American : $42,755[3]
  85. Subsaharan African American : $41,787[3]
  86. Ethiopian American : $41,236[3]
  87. African American : $38,675[3]
  88. Burmese American : $35,016[2]
  89. Iraqi American : $30,855[3]
  90. Somali American : $18,756[3]
This list includes ninety different ethnic/racial/national groups.  Whitey Amerikcan, not on the list, would slot in at number 61, just below Korean Amerikans and just above Ghanaian Amerikans.  Since we all know that evil whitey controls the financial affairs of all people in this immoral and racist country, we can conclude that the 60 ethnic groups above evil whitey are not subject to the hate-filled racist control programs currently directed at the noble black man from Africa.
As a Welsh Amerikan I am proud to say that my ethnic group comes in at 28th place on the list, with an average family income of $66,531, well above the average for evil whitey in this country.  I conclude that the Welsh people are too insignificant, and probably far too irrelevant, to be noticed by evil whitey.  As a result they cannot impose their racists programs of income deprivation upon us.  However, being a generally dull and lazy race, we Welsh don't make it anywhere near the top of the list.
The last time I checked Indian Amerikans (dot, not feather) were a pretty colored people.  Their skin is pretty brown, sometimes almost black, and they often wear very brightly colored tunics as well.  They lead the list of ethnic groups in the SDA with a median family income of $101,591.  This fact makes a strong case to disprove the belief that evil whitey uses his amazing powers to keep down "people of color."  Indeed, yellow people are in second place on the list.  Taiwanese (Chinese) Amerikans make an amazing $85,566 in median family income.  We all know that they would never be able to do that if evil whitey had set his sights upon them and used his amazing powers to keep them down.  Third on the list are Filipino Amerikans.  They make much more than evil whitey families do and they are quite a colorful people, both in skin color and attire.  Once again we can see that the belief that evil whitey is exploiting and destroying the lives of "people of color" is simply not true.  We are only interested in destroying the noble black man from Africa.
Our goal of financial destruction for the noble black man from Africa has been largely realized.  African Amerikan families only made $38,675 in 2014, slotting in at 87th place out of 90 places.  Only the Burmese (who knew?), the Iraqis (they deserve it) and the Somali's (who also deserve it) have been successfully exploited and oppressed more than the noble black man from Africa.
You may wonder why evil whiteys like myself have committed ourselves to a program of personal and financial destruction of the noble black man from Africa.  Why have we singled him out and allowed other "people of color" to prosper even more than we do ourselves?  I wish I could answer that question but I can't.  Institutional racism, the culprit in this case, has existed for so long none of us evil whiteys even know why we do the things we do these days.  It is sort of like the feud that existed between the Hatfields and the McCoys.  Something had to start the feud but after several generations had passed nobody in either family could recall why they were still fighting.  Evil whitey's program of exploitation and financial suppression of the noble black man from Africa no doubt had some reason to come into existence at some point in the past but I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we keep doing it today. 

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Animals First, Humans Second

My good friend Walt Bonora of Lakewood wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post a couple of weeks ago to express his disgust with the free market.  Walt wants civil government to make it illegal for people to move to the area where he already lives and he hates the fact that the free market continues to develop land in his neighborhood.  But don't take my word for it.  Here, in its entirety, is what Walt wrote:
"I was deeply saddened by Colorado Parks and Wildlife's recent decisions to kill two bears and two mountain lions, in the name of protecting people's safety.  What about the safety of the animals we are disturbing? The older I get the more disgusted I get with people.  We overdevelop, encroach, and tear down natural habitats to build more suburbs and golf courses and then get angry when an animal is doing what it has been genetically predisposed to do for millions of years.  One solution is to stop over development.  We don't need another strip mall.  Stop building near wild natural places.  The bears and mountains lions are searching for food. We don't have a population of a billion people in the US. There is plenty of room in this country, but far too many Americans are too accustomed to excesses, and that is a sad statement on our culture."
Well there you have it.  Walt loves animals, especially bears and lions, and hates people, especially people who do things he does not want them to do like building new housing communities and strip malls.  Walt feels free to speak for me every time he uses the word "we."  I don't know who his "we" consists of but it most certainly does not include me.  In fact, I disagree with everything Walt wrote.  Let me dissect Walt's arguments here today.
The policy of the state government is to kill any large wild animal that consistently interacts with humans.  It is true that in many cases it is the fault of the humans that the animal needs to be killed.  Ignorant people who want to have their own personal zoo put out food to attract bears and lions so they can watch them from their back windows.  Unfortunately for the animals, once they become accustomed to the presence of humans their life spans become very short.  I would agree with Walt if he was asking people to allow wild animals to remain wild and not make any attempts to feed them or help them in any way.  But that is not what Walt is asking.  Walt wants human beings to relinquish their real estate holdings so animals can live there in our place.
"We" overdevelop, encroach and tear down natural habitats, according to Walt.  I don't know who makes up the "we" he writes about but I have never developed, torn down or encroached upon the thing he calls a natural habitat.  Or at least I think I haven't.  I did buy a new home once.  That home was built for me and located on a place that did not have any home on it before.  In the course of building that home, which was in the city limits, I suspect spiders, maybe some snakes and possibly some prairie dogs were killed.  My guess is that Walt does not care about that.  My guess is that Walt only cares about prime mountain property when he accuses me of developing, tearing down and encroaching upon land that he evidently believes is owned by animals like lions and bears.
Entrepreneurs operating within the free market build the hated suburbs, including the golf courses that I like to play and that Walt writes about, in response to consumer demand.  If consumers did not want homes in the suburbs and golf courses they would not be built.  If blame needs to be placed upon someone for encroaching, tearing down and developing land allegedly owned by bears and lions then it should be placed squarely on the shoulders of consumers.  I guess that is who Walt's "we" is. I wonder if Walt is a consumer.  I would bet a pretty penny that Walt spends more money on consumption than I do.  We will have to discuss that sometime.
Walt says the solution to the problem that does not exist is to stop building strip malls.  Although he does not say it outright, I believe Walt wants the government to make a law to force developers to stop developing. The problem is people want strip malls, otherwise they would not be built.  So in essence what Walt is saying is that he disagrees with people who want strip malls and, quite importantly, he considers himself to be morally superior because he does not want any more strip malls to be built.  Walt believes that strip malls are being built in places where bears and lions are searching for food.  His solution is to have evil, profit seeking developers build strip malls in the middle of BLM land in the outer reaches of southern Wyoming.  There are no bears or lions in that part of the country.  The problem is no humans live their either.
Walt's argument is an interesting one and that is why I decided to comment upon it today.  Walt believes, if I am reading his letter accurately, that prime real estate should remain undeveloped because it belongs to lions and bears and human beings should be segregated, consolidated and isolated upon waste lands that nobody wants.  Walt really takes the "animals first" position to the extreme.  Walt believes new housing developments, strip malls and golf courses should be constructed in the middle of the Nevada desert where nobody wants to live so as to preserve prime mountain lands for the animals that live there today.  Walt believes that it is a "sad statement" about our "culture" that human beings prefer to live in nice places, the same nice places where Walt's favorite animals live.  I wonder where Walt lives?
Walt believes that animals should not be removed from places where humans decide to live because evolution has designed them to live in those areas.  It seems rather clear that Walt believes in at least some of the tenets of the religion of evolution.  The doctrine he clearly does not believe in is the survival of the fittest.  Human beings are more fit to survive, thanks to Walt's evolution, than lions and bears.  The dispassionate and amoral scales of evolution have spoken and human beings have won.  That means that a practitioner of the religion of evolution should rejoice in the fact that human beings are raping and pillaging the planet, including the animals we come into contact with.  But Walt is not happy.  He is sad.
Walt needs to become a big boy and realize that human beings are on the top of the food chain.  He also needs to realize that the free market is the greatest thing to ever happen to the people who populate this immoral country.  The free market has provided material goods in abundance rarely seen throughout human history.  We live in great comfort and security thanks to the free market.  I, for one, appreciate that fact.  I do not want to go back to the days when grizzly bears would attack my wagon train and kill half my animals.  I like it when animals run from me in fear.  I must disagree with Walt.  I believe human beings must always be put first and animals must be put second.  Although Walt says he would rather put animals first I suspect that his complaining is really more related to the fact that he has a nice home in Colorado and he doe not want anyone else to move here.  I wish he would just come out and say that rather than confuse the issue by writing about lions and bears. 

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

About UNC's Bias Response Team

A reader sent me a link to this webpage that you might want to take a moment to read.  It tells the story of something called the Bias Response Team that exists on the campus of the University of Northern Colorado.  I know some folks who have gone to UNC in recent years and I never heard about the BRT from them.  Apparently they did not show sufficient bias, whatever that is, to get investigated by the team.  Here, in part, is what the article says about the BRT operating at UNC:
"A professor at the University of Northern Colorado assigned Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff’s “The Coddling of the American Mind” to his students — and watched as they proved the essay’s point. According to a report obtained by Heat Street, students filed a complaint with the school’s 'Bias Response Team' based on the professor’s lesson. The professor, whose name has been redacted, seems to have assigned the essay as part of a broader lesson about the value of debate: After reading 'The Coddling of the American Mind,' students were instructed to chart out competing arguments on topics such as transgenderism, abortion, and global warming....he unwittingly gave the world more proof that American higher education has gone off the rails: The mere notion that people disagreed about such issues was, apparently, cause for an investigation. The Bias Response Team was put on the case....What, precisely, is a Bias Response Team? Around the country, universities are increasingly using them as part of an effort to do . . . something. The University of Northern Colorado describes that something as follows in response to an inquiry: 'The intent of the bias-response team is to facilitate discussions between members of the campus community when non-legal concerns of offensive behavior are reported.'”
What in the world is a "non-legal concern of offensive behavior" and who in his right mind would ever report one?  That is a phrase that could only have been concocted in post-modern world where language has lost all meaning.  I would guess that "non-legal" means that the alleged offensive behavior has not yet been made illegal by statute.  As such it would include such things as Christian ministers reading passages from the Bible that declare God's hatred for adulterers, fornicators, pedophiles, homosexuals and the incestuous.  In this particular case it included the behavior of a professor who assigned a book to read that contained the argument that Amerikan college students are a bunch of emotional wimps and limp wristed intellectual sissies.  The fact that the thesis of the book is rather obviously proven to be true in the case of the student's response to it was apparently lost on them as they decided to explore their feelings rather than think with their puny little brains.  The lesson to be learned here is that the truth should never get in the way of a good opportunity to take offense at something.  My oh my, these students are really preparing themselves well to be good citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika. 
What is a "concern?"  That word has always bothered me.  I can't tell you how many times people have come up to me and attempted to control my behavior by informing me that they "want to express their concerns" about this thing or that.  Without exception every time I have heard the phrase about expressing their concerns the matter under consideration was something that they took offense to because of their own extreme emotional and intellectual insecurity.  Those who express their concerns about something never do so because they are actually concerned about the things they are talking about.  And it is a foregone conclusion that those manipulative and deceitful people who have told me they are concerned about me are in reality concerned only with themselves.  When someone tells you she would like to express her concern about XYZ in your life what she is really saying is, "Your thoughts and behaviors bother me because they show me how insecure I am.  I want you to stop doing them because they make me feel bad and, after all, the universe really does revolve around me."
At UNC some students required to read a book arguing that college students are intellectual and emotional midgets decided to take offense at that assignment and ran to notify the BRT.  No person in his right mind could argue that merely making the assignment to read a book about the dumbing down of Amerikan college students is an offensive behavior, especially in a college setting and for college students. That did not keep those students from taking offense and running to their deity for protection from ideas that would certainly prove the stupidity of everything they believe and feel.   Rather than allowing their own erroneous presuppositions and beliefs about the nature of life to be challenged, they ran to a government bureau and asked for the right to suppress the ideas they found so offensive.  To the surprise of nobody, the government bureau known as the BRT injected itself into the situation and made everything worse.
The story does not say what happened to the professor who had the audacity to assign a book to read that did not coddle the infantile emotional constitutions of his students.  I hope he got fired and found a career in the real world, outside of academia and away from government control of his thoughts.  The story does go on to say something so bizarre it is almost impossible to comprehend how it could have been said.  The administration of UNC, composed of intellectual giants and leaders in the community no doubt, issued the following statement after siccing the BRT on the poor professor, "UNC is committed to being a place that supports the free and vigorous exchange of ideas in building understanding. Promoting dialogue around how we use language fits with that tenet.” So there you have it.  As long as all students and professors agree to limit their discussions to those items previously approved by the progressives among us, they are free to speak their minds.  The moment, however, somebody crosses over the line and says something that is not preapproved by their progressive handlers, they will be shut down by the BRT in the name of freedom of speech and inclusivity.  As the BRT henchmen declared, "the actions (of the offending party, ed) may still run counter to UNC’s commitment to foster civility and inclusivity."  Have you figured that all out?  If so, you are qualified to work on a college campus in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  SDA college campuses are one place where you are guaranteed to never be challenged by the truth.  You can live your life in insular self-satisfaction and self-righteousness for as long as you can afford to go there.  

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Ten Things I Hate About Baseball

I am a baseball fan so what I am about to write is not based upon a pathological hatred for the second greatest sport in the world.  (The greatest sport in the world is cycling.)  I watch a lot of baseball.  Almost all of the Rockies 162 games are televised and I usually sit down to watch at least the start of each game.  Then, as the innings begin to roll by, I find myself getting more and more angry.  Eventually I am forced to change the channel to Fox News in order to avoid blowing an emotional gasket.  As  you would suspect, switching to Fox News does not make things better. That forces me to shut the television off entirely and go outside for a while.  My wife thinks I should just start the evening off by sitting outside and talking with her but what does she know about my love/hate relationship with the game of baseball?  Today I would like to tell you about the ten things I most hate about baseball.
  1. The pace of play is stultifying.  More than anything else I am forced to change channels when some combination of hitter and pitcher slows the game down to the point that a pitch is only delivered every minute or so.  Pitchers like to play mind games with the hitters by making them wait in the batter's box.  Hitters like to play mind games with the pitchers by making them wait on the mound.  Both of them are behaving like children when they do that.  I just want to yell "Stop It, and respect the game you selfish jerks!" when I see that sort of shenanigans.  In what has proven to be a vain attempt to speed up the pace of play the rules were modified during the off season to require hitters to stay in the box and pitchers to throw a pitch, I believe, at least every 20 seconds.  Those rules were enforced during spring training, talked about the first couple weeks of the season and are now totally ignored by both players and umpires alike.  Baseball has a problem when even a hard core fan like me will stop watching because the game has slowed down to a snail's pace.
  2. Umpires setting up other than directly behind the plate.  An umpire can change the entire complexion of a game.  A strike call here, a ball call there and the entire at bat can change.  One at bat can impact the entire game.  It is vitally important that the umpires call balls and strikes correctly.  So what do most behind the plate umpires do?  They set up to one side or the other of the catcher and call the game from there.  Inevitably the fact that they are not directly behind the plate causes them to call pitches incorrectly.  When their line of eyesight is not directly connected to the pitcher's mound they cannot see if pitches on the corners were truly balls or strikes.  Umpires need to be required to set up immediately behind the plate, regardless of where the catcher positions himself.
  3. The constantly morphing strike zone.  Everyone readily admits that each umpire calls the game with a different strike zone.  Players are then expected to figure out how the umpire calls the game and adjust their own perceptions of the strike zone to accommodate that umpire.    That is utterly ridiculous, stupid and disrespectful of both the players and the game.  The strike zone is narrowly defined and its definition is not hard to comprehend.  If an umpire cannot call balls and strikes within the rules of the game he should replaced by a couple of lasers and a computer.  I am in favor of taking balls and strikes out of the hands of the umpire and putting it into the hands of the computer.  I hate the fact that umpires, who should be unseen, end up having a serious impact upon how the game plays out.
  4. The contact play.  The Rockies have run into more outs utilizing the contact play than any team in the history of the world.  For those of you who are not aware, the contact play says that a runner on third base must immediately break for home plate the moment the hitter makes contact with the ball, regardless of where the ball is hit.  How many times have I witnessed a hapless Rockie jogging homeward to be easily tagged out because the ball was hit sharply to the third baseman!  Get rid of the brainless contact play and let the runners judge for themselves if they believe they can get home safely.
  5. The neighborhood play.  MLB attempted to address this problem earlier this year by modifying the rules about a double play turn at second base.  The neighborhood play is what happens when either the second baseman or shortstop is just in the neighborhood of second base when making the turn and throwing to first in an attempt to complete a double play.  The umpire would call the runner out even though the fielder did not touch second base while holding the ball.  The neighborhood play was allowed because umpires also allowed the runner charging down the base path from first base to slide wildly outside the path, or even over the bag in some cases, in an attempt to take out the fielder making the turn.  The simple solution to the problem, which is being sporadically enforced this year, is to require the base runner to slide into the bag and nothing more.  Any runner that goes outside the base path or over the bag should be immediately ruled out and the player running to first should be called out as well, regardless of whether the ball arrives on time.  At the same time, the fielder should also be required to touch the bag before the out is called at second.
  6. Walks.  Walks are infuriating.  NO pitcher at the major league level should ever issue a walk, unless he is a knuckleball thrower. If a player cannot throw all of his pitches for strikes he should not be in the major leagues.  I understand why pitchers are afraid to throw strikes.  Umpires with absurdly small strike zones make it very difficult for them.  They are afraid that all strikes will turn into hits.  Tough.  That is how the game is played.  To give pitchers an incentive to throw strikes the punishment for a walk should be two bases instead of one.  Putting a hitter into scoring position for a walk should dramatically improve the ability of pitchers to throw strikes. Incidentally, that will also speed up the pace of play.
  7. Hit by a pitch.  Unless a player is standing in the strike zone when he is hit by a pitch, the punishment for hitting a batter with a pitch should be two bases instead of one.  Although I have never been hit by a pitch thrown at 90 mph, I can imagine that it must sting quite a bit.  There is no excuse for ever hitting a batter with a pitch, provided the pitcher is always throwing strikes and the hitter is not diving into the strike zone.  Punishing hitting a batter with a pitch with two bases should dramatically reduce the number of bruises in the league.
  8. Framing a pitch.  Framing a pitch is when the catcher receives a pitch and moves his mitt to make it appear to the umpire as if the ball was actually a strike when it wasn't.  Catchers are rated by their ability to frame a pitch and the allegedly good catchers are praised for their ability to do so.  Framing a pitch is perhaps the most overrated and downright stupid part of the game of baseball.  When a catcher frames a pitch he is admitting to the umpire that he knew it was not a strike and he is somehow convinced that he is able to persuade the umpire that it was a strike by moving his mitt to where a strike would have been thrown.  Do you really believe umpires are that stupid?  I can tell, from my very distorted perspective while watching on television, when a catcher knows that the pitch was a ball because he tries to frame it to appear to be a strike.  Do you honest believe the umpire can't see that?  Go ahead and keep framing pitches but don't expect me to believe that doing so makes a player a good catcher.  In my mind it just makes him stupid.
  9. Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire.
  10. Machismo.  MLB players have the emotional constitutions of little children.  They are almost all extremely insecure and in need of constant positive feedback.  How do I know this?  Because of their machismo.  Bench clearing brawls are a part of baseball because the players lack the ability to control their emotions.  I have a simple solution to the problem.  Anyone who is involved in an on field fight should be banned from baseball for life.  Pitchers throw hissy fits when a player hits a homerun against them and then does the dreaded "bat flip."  The next time that player comes up the pitcher tries to bean him to teach him a lesson about "showing him up."  What a bunch of little girls they all are.  Hey, pitchers, guess what?  Even the worst of you get the hitters out the great majority of the time.  So stop you whining and play the game.  Hey, batters, even the best of you are out two thirds of the time.  So stop acting like you just saved the world.  Maybe next time you hit a homerun you should act like you plan on hitting another one some day and just make your way around the bases without announcing to the entire world that you believe the universe revolves around you.  Fellas, please just try to respect the game and each other.  I cringe every time I see machismo on the field.  Each event detracts from what is truly a beautiful game.  If you loved the game as much as some of us who do not play do you would never behave that way.