Old Clark Field, The University of Texas:

From 1928 until 1974, The University of Texas boasted one of the most visually interesting baseball parks in the country.

Clark Field.

The limestone outcrops and cliffs of Austin, Texas — and westward into the Texas Hill Country — are distinctive and beautiful.  Only recently did I stumble upon a photo depicting their presence across the outfield of my alma mater’s old baseball diamond.

Clark Field, The University of Texas (1928-1974)

The face of the outcrop varied from 12-to-30-feet in height — a home field advantage if there ever was one.  Opposing teams couldn’t possibly anticipate the odd bounces off of the limestone as well as could the Longhorns.

Meanwhile, the scoreboard sat atop “Billy Goat Hill.”

Billy Goat Hill, Clark Field, The University of Texas.

Hits landing on the hill were considered in play.  And the Texas players knew best how to reach them in a hurry.

It wasn’t uncommon for two, UT outfielders to position themselves atop and behind the cliff — with the other two remaining below.

The University of Texas won 37 Southwest Conference baseball championships while calling Clark Field home. Plus, two College World Series championships.

Bonus Fun Fact: It’s said that Lou Gehrig hit a 550-foot home run far over “Billy Goat Hill” during a 1930 exhibition game.

My Bobble Head Yoda, Tho:

Bobble head Yoda ponders his bobble head existence on a shelf in my sound studio — providing creative mojo.

Bobble Head Yoda

“I Just Don’t Like The Guy”:

Just trying to sort this out–

We all know George W. Bush thinks Dick Cheney is a swell guy. Let’s also consider that Dubya once looked Vladimir Putin in the eye, said that he gained a sense of Putin’s very soul — and deemed him “trustworthy.”

Yet he dislikes Ted Cruz.

In what universe can you plot all of that on an x-y axis?

All Trumped Out?

I’ll just post this from Kevin Drum in its entirety (because it’s awesome):

Message to everyone: You don’t have to cover Donald Trump’s every move. Honest. If you’re going to whine and complain about how he’s sucking all the oxygen out of the race, then stop covering him unless he does something genuinely newsworthy. Which actually isn’t all that often.

For God’s sake, how hard can this be? If clickbait is all that matters to you, fine. But don’t pretend you’re being journalists if that’s all that’s driving you.

Not that I’m complaining about the coverage.

I mean, for liberals, Donald Trump has an Eric Cartman-like super power — turning your shocked disbelief into a guilty pleasure.

MSNBC would be insane not to cover this traveling carnival wall-to-wall.

Is Trump Trolling The GOP?

In the past, Donald Trump has held several liberal political positions — on abortion rights, raising taxes on the rich, and universal health care:

[H]e was once a registered Democrat who called for legalizing drugs, a massive one-time 14.25 percent tax on the wealthy and staying out of wars that didn’t present a “direct threat” to the U.S. In many ways, he’s been to the left of Clinton and even Bernie Sanders on some issues.

So Vox.com’s Jonathan Allen suggests that The Donald might be trolling the GOP this primary campaign season.

I don’t know if I buy it.  But it’s certainly a delicious explanation for Twitter volleys such as this one, aimed at Rick Perry the other day:

The late, great Texas political humorist Molly Ivins also considered Perry “not the sharpest knife in the drawer.” And christened him “Governor Goodhair” for that healthy, well-behaved shock positioned just to the north of his thick-rimmed hipster glasses.

Credit Perry’s genetics, I suppose.  ‘Cuz fine heads of hair can’t be bought — just ask Trump.

But back to the Art of the Troll: the thought has occurred to me that Trump might be pulling a Ross Perot.  It was always rumored that Perot was more interested in removing H.W. Bush from office than in defeating Bill Clinton in 1992.

Perhaps Trump fancies himself the “jam car” of 2016:

And just as with Ross Perot, the mark could be a Bush (Jeb!), and the benefactor a Clinton.

Which is all fine and dandy if you like your elections served with plenty of unintended humor. (And I do, indeed.)

But is the risk — however slight — of Trump somehow finding his way into the White House worth such a fleeting reward?

Repenting Of My High School’s Confederate Flag:

As a guy who grew up in a community whose neighborhood high school was dripping with symbols of the Confederacy, I’m all too familiar with folks who defend the Confederate flag with claims that it represents “heritage, not hate.”

History, of course, doesn’t leave much room for this argument.

From the 1940’s to the 1960’s, white supremacist political groups in the South, championing segregation and fighting in opposition to the Civil Rights movement, chose for themselves a now infamous symbol:  the Southern Cross.

Also known as the Stars and Bars, this was a flag originally flown by the Army of Northern Virginia.

Later, it became the most visually distinctive portion of the third and final flag of the Confederate States of America (below), and so is popularly known today simply as the Confederate flag.

Third, and final, official flag of the Confederate States of America

To bridge the gap in the flag’s history between the Civil War and its use in the backlash against the Civil Rights movement, Libby Nelson provides helpful context at Vox.com:

The civil rights movement didn’t change the flag’s meaning — it simply made the hate underlying the heritage more explicit. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, white Southerners used the Confederate flag to intimidate civil rights activists and demonstrate states’ willingness to protect segregation at all costs.

The flag no longer represented just a 19th-century battle to preserve white supremacy, but a 20th-century one as well.

The KKK waved the Confederate flag. So did the Citizens’ Councils, white supremacist groups of prominent and successful people who opposed integration. White mobs at the University of Alabama carried Confederate flags when they threw rocks at Autherine Lucy, the university’s first black student, before the university decided to expel her rather than protect her. Mobs fighting to protect segregated schools wore Confederate flags in Little Rock and New Orleans and Austin and Birmingham.

It’s an ugly symbol, with the ugliest of origins.

Of course, for many of my generation, Generation X, the first encounter with this symbol came via a popular TV show of our youth, The Dukes of Hazard, where it was splashed across the top of an extremely cool car (we thought) — The General Lee.

The Dukes of Hazard's General Lee Car

I can’t have been the only kid in the early 80’s who sat at the steering wheel of one of his parents’ parked cars — with all the windows rolled entirely down — pretending I was Bo or Luke Duke speeding around Hazard County, jumping creeks, and tormenting the likes of Boss Hogg and Sheriff Rosco P. Coletrane.

ERTL Toy Car - General LeeIn fact, along with a Hot Wheels knock-off of Speed Racer’s Mach 5, a small, die cast General Lee was my most prized toy car.

So, from an early age, a Trojan Horse of sorts had slipped through the gates of my generation’s subconscious, inviting us to become sympathetic to the view that the Confederate flag was about “heritage, not hate.”

For some of us, I think this goes a long way in explaining the popularity the Confederate flag still enjoys today. And why many insist the flag has never represented racism to them.

But back to my high school alma mater, South Garland High School (established in 1964), which, as I’ve mentioned, was absolutely drenched in symbols of the Confederacy.

South Garland’s mascot was a Civil War “Southern Colonel.”  Its school song was “Dixie.”  Its school flag was the Confederate flag (modified only so that the school shield could be displayed across its middle).

And its school shield — named without irony, the Libertas — was designed to boast yet another Confederate flag within.

Pre-1992 South Garland High School Flag

At school pep rallies, our cheerleaders would lead chants of, “The South. The South. The South shall rise again!” And in our school cafeteria was a wall covered with a hand-painted mural of a southern plantation — complete with apparent slaves working the fields.

South Garland High School's Pre-1992 School ShieldEven today, some 20 years after the Confederate flag was officially removed at South Garland High School, this tile display of the school shield remains outside the school’s main offices, a gift from the Senior class of 1968.

But the history of the Confederate flag at South Garland High School took a peculiar twist in 1990, my Senior year, when an African American student was chosen (by front office staff, I believe) to be our class’s Colonel mascot. This meant he would don a Confederate Colonel’s uniform and wave our school’s Confederate flag at football games and pep rallies.

I never spoke with him about it at the time. And, sadly, he’s dead now. So I can’t claim to know whether his decision to pursue and then accept being our school’s mascot was an act of defiance, of humor, maybe both — or something else entirely.

I know this: a popular and extremely well-liked black student wearing a Confederate uniform and waving a Confederate flag to chants of “The South shall rise again!” made it much easier for a predominantly white student body in a Texas suburb to embrace the perceived “heritage” of that symbol, and not the “hate.”

Yes, a peculiar twist.

South Garland Colonel Mascot 1990

Today my perspective is 20/20. I see all the bad seeds that were planted in pop culture and in southern communities like mine.

And I understand that those seeds, symbols like the Confederate flag, were placed there by the politics of white supremacy.

Shamefully, they’ve been allowed to survive decades in the civic sphere: atop state capitol buildings; on state college campuses; at taxpayer maintained cemeteries and memorials; and at public schools like mine.

There they acquired cultural camouflage. And were conflated with otherwise harmless feelings, like regional pride or school spirit.

Until generations of kids began to view them — sincerely (in many cases), but ignorantly — as “heritage” instead of “hate.”

The time to placate ignorance has passed.

A Spike Lee Joint:

For me, an Instagram gem:  Bono on Spike Lee’s IG feed.

Social Conservatism & Pharisaic Christianity

In the wake of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, a disappointing response from the governor of my home state of Texas, Greg Abbott:

What social conservatives like Abbott fail to grasp is that the 1st Amendment was crafted to protect the rest of us from them. The Founding Fathers** understood all too well the Puritanical compulsion of certain denominations and faiths to seek to institutionalize the particulars of their religious beliefs in the civil laws that govern us all.

The 1st Amendment does not guarantee Greg Abbott the right to impose his definition of marriage on other faiths — and certainly not on the rest of society.

Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on these sorts of Church-and-State issues were blunt:

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

I would substitute “denomination” for “religion” in Franklin’s quote, but endorse his overall point wholeheartedly.

Truth is, when the likes of Greg Abbott are squealing the loudest about “losing” their religious liberties, the 1st Amendment is working exactly as intended.

** The Founding Fathers, of course, were not of one mind.  They were an eclectic bunch, divided into all sorts of factions:  intellectual, geographical, religious, etc.  And some, no doubt, would side with Greg Abbott today.  However, those were not the Fathers who won the day when the wording of the 1st Amendment survived its final vote.


Underselling Climate Change?

Over at Vox.com, David Roberts points out that for over 30 years, climate scientists have been telling the public, “We’re running out of time; we’ve only got five or 10 years to turn things around, but we can do it if we put our minds to it.”

The obvious problem here:  We’ve now passed several five- and 10-year cut-off marks.

Have climate scientists been crying wolf for three decades?

No, says Roberts. Let your mind wander the other direction:

The obvious truth about global warming is this: barring miracles, humanity is in for some awful shit.

Roberts’ (via Oliver Geden) contends that climate scientists have been comforting us with climate models that rely on “increasingly unrealistic assumptions” concerning mankind’s future ability to remove vast amounts of CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere.

PicardFacePalm-SmallerBut why?

It may be that climate scientists feel pressure — somewhat akin to a journalist’s struggle with self-censorship? — to provide the best climate prognosis possible; because they know that politicians, even the ones most sympathetic to the scientific consensus on climate change, want to hear the best news possible.

Roberts drives the point home quite well:

There is not a politician on earth — no, not even Bernie Sanders — who wants to tell his or her constituents, “We’ve probably already blown our chance to avoid substantial suffering, but if we work really hard and devote our lives to the cause, we can somewhat reduce the even worse suffering that awaits our grandchildren.” [crowd roars]

So, while climate deniers are fiddling as Rome burns, the Titanic has left the harbor.

And climate scientists could be banking on its passengers’ ability to build new lifeboats.

Rubio And The Rube-Wing Media:

I find it hilarious that Marco Rubio’s team thought it could confuse certain right-wing media, however briefly, by questioning the accuracy of a Spanish-to-English translation of Rubio’s recent Univision interview.

Here’s Jonathan Chait:

Rubio has renounced his own [immigration] plan, but he is being very cagey. In an interview with Univision last month, he promised not to overturn Obama’s executive [immigration] action until a legislative solution would be put in its place. (Rubio’s advisers initially told conservative media that his interview, which took place in Spanish, was mistranslated, but ultimately conceded that the initial interpretation was fundamentally correct.)

As daunting as conservatism’s Latino problem may be, it appears its partisan media is at least up to the task of properly verifying a Spanish translation.

Though I’m not sure Rubio should be blamed for underestimating them… heh.