After being banned from Major League Baseball for life, gambler Pete Rose and others like Shoeless Joe Jackson are now eligible to be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Rose was banned in 1989 and spent the rest of his life crying about it instead of offering repentance. He didn’t even stop gambling. He never helped his case, even when it seemed Baseball wanted to bring him back.
Commissioner Rob Manfred made the ruling and said, “In my view, once an individual has passed away, the purposes of Rule 21 have been served. Obviously, a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game. Moreover, it is hard to conceive of a penalty that has more deterrent effect than one that lasts a lifetime with no reprieve.”
If Rose hadn’t bet on baseball, or if he hadn’t been caught, he would have been voted into the HoF as soon as he was eligible, which is five years after retirement. His 4,256 hits, 3,562 games played, and 15,890 plate appearances are still unbroken records. Across 24 seasons, Rose made 17 All-Star teams, won three batting titles, won the 1973 NL MVP, and won three World Series trophies. Rose earned the nickname “Charlie Hustle” for his aggressive style of play. Rose always seemed to find himself on base, and then the next, and then the next, until he was across home plate. He is a baseball legend. Even his gambling addiction couldn’t take away his legend.
I was excited when I heard this, not because I am a baseball fan and am in Rose’s corner. I’ve always had mixed views about Rose’s ban, and Shoeless Joe Jackson’s, for that matter. I was excited because I thought that here’s a chance I can do a cartoon that’s not about Donald Trump. And then I read how this ban was lifted.
Among those transgender service members that Hegseth is kicking out is Commander Emily Shilling, who has served in the Navy for almost two decades. A naval aviator with over 60 combat missions under her belt, she is the lead plaintiff suing the administration to overturn the ban. Shilling told Women Rule that it’s her duty not only to follow lawful orders but to challenge those she believes to be unlawful.
She has proved that Transgender people are no different to anyone else that serves and in many cases their service is over the top.
Hegseth a National Guard weekend warrior and Trump the draft dodger are not good enough to lick the boots of the commander. I say this as a retired US army disabled vet. I hope the two of them die in their travels and the world and country would be better off.
I have bitterly wondered why people wouldn’t just go vote for whoever they had to, but to just vote, especially in the 2024 election. I’ve had a hard time with the non-voters. But, turns out, some of them have legitimate reasons (I’ve spoken with none,) but it turns out that not all the non-voters are asses. -A
Political tension and fears of violence may have depressed voter turnout in 2024
Women and gender-nonconforming people were more likely than men to fear violence and harassment while voting in the 2024 election, and those who expressed concerns about safety were more likely not to vote at all, new research shows.
The study, released Monday and shared first with The 19th, was conducted by States United Democracy Center, a nonpartisan organization focused on promoting fair and secure elections and upholding the rule of law.
“Tens of millions of Americans ultimately cast their ballots in 2024 without incident,” the report said. “But voting was not straightforward and safe for all Americans. Many were harassed, and a limited number were subjected to physical violence.”
The study found that the 2024 election was, as a whole, safe, fair and securely conducted, with voters overwhelmingly reporting feeling safe at the polls and confident in the safety and security of the election. But rising incidents of political violence, heightened political polarization and gender-based harassment had a measurable impact on how women and gender-noncomforming people especially viewed the safety of voting in the 2024 election — and whether they turned out to vote at all, the study says.
Researchers surveyed voters before and after the 2024 election in partnership with research data and analytics group YouGov and held a series of seven focus groups before the election — with three groups of White women, three groups of women of color and one made up of gender-nonconforming participants. They also fielded surveys of state lawmakers, election administrators and law enforcement officials in partnership with the nonprofit CivicPulse. The study is also one of the first of its kind to study the voting experiences of gender-nonconforming voters, who are subject to gender-based discrimination and harassment at the polls.
Women, people of color and gender-nonconforming people were more likely to have perceived the election environment as being unsafe, reported experiencing higher rates of voting-related harassment and were more likely to take precautionary measures when going to the polls. The study also compared pre-election survey responses to voting records and found that higher expectations of experiencing violence or harassment at the polls was correlated with lower voting rates.
“Concerns about violence or harassment depressed turnout, likely turning millions of voters into non-voters,” the report said.
The pre-election survey, conducted September 23 to 30, 2024, surveyed 4,016 American adults with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 points. The post-election survey, conducted November 7 to 19, surveyed a separate group of 4,017 registered voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.6 points. The researchers asked a series of questions to identify gender-nonconforming respondents in its surveys with YouGov, resulting in a sample of 81 gender-nonconforming voters in the pre-election survey and 103 in the post-election survey.
To measure fears of harassment and violence, researchers asked respondents how likely they thought it was to experience events ranging from verbal or written harassment to property damage and acts of physical violence. While all gender groups provided average responses of “somewhat unlikely” across all five, gender-nonconforming respondents had a higher expected likelihood of harassment or violence.
Overall, 91 percent of men, 89 percent of women and 73 percent of gender-nonconforming respondents said in the post-election survey that they felt safe voting. But respondents’ perceptions and feelings of safety varied by race among women and gender-nonconforming people. In the post-election survey, 92 percent of White respondents said they felt completely or mostly safe voting, compared with 85 percent of Black voters and 84 percent of Hispanic voters.
In pre-election surveys, women and voters of color were more likely than men and White respondents to view voting as unsafe and to say they were taking precautions as a result. Among women, the most common safety precaution respondents said they were likely to take was not bringing their children to the polls (32 percent), while the most common safety precaution for gender-nonconforming people was not interacting with others at the polls (46 percent). About a quarter of women and gender-nonconforming respondents said they were likely to vote by mail.
Several women voters in focus groups cited the potential of gun violence as a concern.
“I don’t go to the polls, because you never know what you will encounter there,” said a White independent woman voter who participated in one of the focus groups. “It seems like everybody in Arizona has a gun. We vote by mail, because it’s safer. Everybody has an opinion; you get in line, and you hear it all. You never know, if they don’t agree with you, they’ll shoot you. People are crazy.”
Others spoke to the heightened political climate and general political tensions around the election as a reason they feared threats, harassment and even heated conversations in line.
“I go early, or late, when I won’t run into anybody I know, and there won’t be any conversation,” said a Black Republican woman focus group participant. “I don’t want to deal with the emotional, ‘Who did you vote for?’ And me saying, ‘I don’t want to discuss it.’ So there are no issues, fighting, cussing, yelling. Save my peace of mind.”
People who feared violence and harassment at higher levels were less likely to vote, researchers found by comparing survey responses to verified voting records. When controlling for turnout differences based on demographic considerations, the study still found an average three percentage point decline in the likelihood of voting.
“For context, differences in voter behavior based on education level, one of the strongest predictors of turnout, are only half as large as differences explained by expectations of violence or harassment,” the report said. “Put another way, generalizing our results to the nationwide electorate, roughly 6 million Americans may have decided not to vote in 2024 because of concerns about violence or harassment.”
Gender-nonconforming voters face particularly unique challenges and barriers when it comes to voting.
A rise in anti-transgender political rhetoric from the right has been accompanied by a slew of laws targeting transgender people in Republican-controlled states. Some of these laws have sought to create strict definitions of gender and bar transgender individuals from changing the sex listed on their official identification to align with their gender identity. In states that require voters to show photo identification at the polls, that could open up transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals to scrutiny and potential harassment. In the pre-election survey, a third of gender-nonconforming voters said they were likely to dress differently at the polls.
“I’ve been a registered voter for decades. When I attempted to vote last time, they had a hard time ‘finding’ my registration,” said a gender-nonconforming Black independent who participated in a focus group. “I could tell I was being judged. The attitude of the person looking at your information to give you the voting packet can be intimidating. My documents have been submitted, I have my ID, what’s the problem? I felt there was judgment as far as was my information correct or was it fraudulent.”
In the post-election survey, over half of gender-nonconforming respondents said they took at least one safety precaution when voting, compared with about a third of men and women who said they took at least one precaution. Thirteen percent of gender-nonconforming respondents reported experiencing verbal harassment, intimidation and threats compared to 5.2 percent of men and 4.8 percent of women. In all, 18 percent of gender-nonconforming voters reported experiencing violence or harassment during the 2024 election season.
“I am obviously queer when you look at me, and I’ve been harassed for it,” said another focus group participant, an Asian-American Democratic voter. “Depending on how I do my hair or what I wear [on election] day, it’s a higher chance I’ll get harassed. If I was girly, I would be afraid someone could see through that and do me harm.”
This story has been updated to clarify support and funding for the report.
I was watching Trump talk about the “gift” from Qatar, the 747 jet that’s going to be our newest Air Force One. He said, “I could be a stupid person and say we don’t want a free plane, but this helps us out.” That sounds a lot like an excuse from a guy who just took a bribe.
This plane doesn’t help us out, it helps him out. If Qatar were trying to help us out, they would have given the gift without any stipulations, except they didn’t give us the gift. They gave it to Trump, and only to Trump.
Yeah, sure. It technically belongs to the Air Force, but the stipulation is that when Trump leaves office, which is supposed to be in January 2029, the plane is transferred to his presidential library. Three odd things about this is, why does Qatar get to tell us how to use its gift, why can’t the plane remain in service, and why does an illiterate fuckface get a library?
Don’t believe me on the illiterate part? Check this out from 2017. I noticed three things in that video.
One, he can’t read. Two, he’s calling out his new friend in Qatar and accusing them of financing terrorism, which includes groups like Hama, ISIS, al Qaida, and the Taliban (who are also his friends now). Three, the wind is having a very difficult time budging that bleached, dead aardvark on his head. What the hell does he put in that shit, concrete?
Maybe Qatar bribed Trump to stop accusing them of financing terror while encouraging him to learn how to read. There’s no help with the bleached, dead aadvark shit.
So what does Qatar get from this bribe? Maybe we’ll find out from his personal business deals in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Trump is visiting all three nations during this trip. By the way, the Trump Crime Family’s net worth increased by $3 billion since January. I’m sure that happening after Trump becoming president (sic) is just a coincidence.
It was announced last week that a brand new Trump Tower and hotel resort will be built in Qatar. It’s even being developed by one of the government’s companies. The Trump Organization announced an ethics (haha) pledge for Trump 2.0, and that it would permit foreign business deals, but explicitly bar partnerships with foreign governments. HAHAHA. Ethics from the Trump Organization.
On my GoComics page, there’s an idiot still screaming about Joe Biden’s “foreign” business deals.
There’s also going to be a $5.5 billion Trump beachside golf course in Dubai in the UAE, which was canceled years ago but re-approved in 2025. What explicit timing.
Saudi Arabia, the nation that butchered an American-protected journalist, recently announced new deals for Trump properties in several of its cities, which I’m sure had nothing to do with Trump giving them huge arms packages today.
Also, I should have scratched out the hamberders on the list, because the Saudis rolled out a full-size, mobile McDonald’s truck ahead of Trump’s arrival, knowing that a corrupt toddler with power was coming.
Trump is announcing investments in America from these three nations worth billions and perhaps even trillions, but the thing with these promises is that they’re just promises. Sure, they’ll invest, but in what and for how much? You can’t trust Trump’s numbers. It’s like all those factories he promised would be built by companies that exported jobs. They didn’t arrive.
The Trump Organization also announced deals for new golf resorts in Vietnam, which are with the Communist Party.
One last point for the day: If President Joe Biden were corrupt, some foreign country would have bought him a plane.
Speaking of Gocomics: The streak of posting a brand new cartoon every day on GoComics is now at eight years. I passed it on May 6, but I was too busy drawing a cartoon to notice.
AI thieves: So this is new. A couple of YouTube channels are using AI to copy cartoons, or as ToonAmerica says, reported by the Daily Cartoonist, finish “manually sketch[ed] unique, raw cartoon concepts”
First off, when my cartoon is published, it’s “finished.” I get annoyed simply by a reader telling me how the cartoon could be better or how I should have drawn it, but this shit?
I don’t like to give these guys publicity, but I do need to post the links so you know where to go to report them.
I’m very protective of my work. I don’t like it when Facebook pages steal my cartoons to build their audience, don’t even give me a tag or credit, and then argue that they had the right to steal it. But this theft of copying my work, and doing it with AI, really pisses me off.
Someone defending AI posted to Facebook a few days ago, “What’s the problem?” This. This is the problem, asshole. Another user of AI “art” told me today not to take it personally. I hope he doesn’t take it personally after I block him.
So, when people steal my work, I go after them. Fortunately, I’m not alone this time, because he/it/they hit a bunch of cartoonists.
Most of the time, my colleagues support me in these fights and say, “Go get ‘em, Tiger,” but they don’t get off the bench. They were too afraid to go after Ted Rall when he was working for a Russian propaganda outlet, they remained silent about the anonymous cartoonist (Rivers) or outright supported him, and most refuse to call out all the tracers out there (there’s a bunch). But now, they want to form a posse. Welcome to the game, fuckers.
I’ve been trying to fight for this industry, and not just for myself. Other cartoonists don’t want to ruffle feathers or get in trouble with colleagues. Maybe I’m the stupid one for doing so. But now, other cartoonists are ready to fight because someone stuck their fingers in their pies.
I told a couple of colleagues on Facebook, who are victims of this AI theft, that I would help them, and that was before I found out I was a victim too. They should take note of that. So far, the only ones I’ve noticed who have spoken out about this are the ones who’ve been affected.
Comic Strip of the Day: Mike Peterson does a great service for political cartoonists with his daily feature, Comic Strip of the Day, which can be found at the Daily Cartoonist. But there are times when I think he’s full of himself.
Today, he included two cartoons about the pope being an American. The cartoons were the same cartoon, and he wrote, “I’m ignoring cartoons about Leo XIV being a White Sox fan or refusing to put ketchup on hot dogs, and even the mildly sacrilegious jokes about deep-dish communion hosts. While I don’t think they’re insightful or funny, I’m not particularly offended.”
Peterson uses my work quite often, and I appreciate it. A lot of the White Sox and Hot Dog jokes did get old (but I was the first with the hot dog thing). But, Mike, with all due respect, I would never rely on you for what’s insightful or funny.
Creative note: I chose this over Trump pausing tariffs on China. I may go back to that tomorrow.
Their goal is to copy Russia. The goal is to wipe the LGBTQ+ community from society, from the public view. They want to make us illegal like in the most hateful countries or again to be like Russia under Putin. I used to think these people wanted to return to the 1950s but now I think I was wrong. They want to return to the early 1930s when the Nazi party was very active and strong in the US. I kept telling the people who wanted the LGB to let the t go to protect the rest that it was a divide and conquer strategy and that they would come for the rest of us next. And they are doing that. Just being gay or fighting the haters trying to deny gay people rights is a security risk to nation according to them. Hugs
There’s a new “Axis of Evil” in the Trump administration cosmology and it’s not al Qaeda or North Korea. Instead, the preeminent threat to national security, according to the hapless folks at Donald Trump’s personal law firm, is anyone who ever donated money to LGBTQ civil rights organization GLAD. At least that’s the government’s new working theory as it tries to justify its retaliatory executive order against Susman Godfrey.
Had Susman, for example, taken on that GLAD challenge pro bono, the allegation would still be risible, but when the whole argument hinges on the firm generally donating to a prominent non-profit it crosses into professionally embarrassing.
Aside from trying to tag Susman for its charitable contributions, it’s also deeply troubling to suggest that filing a federal lawsuit is a “dangerous effort to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military.” In a rule of law society (I know, I know, but humor me on this idea for the moment), “going to court” isn’t sedition, but the system working as intended. Checks and balances and all that stuff. To call a federal lawsuit an effort to undermine the government, requires adopting the premise that it’s a threat to make sure the government isn’t doing anything illegal. Courts can get the law wrong, but the point is that we encourage people to take grievances to court and not storm federal buildings… you know, the behavior that we traditionally considered a “dangerous effort to undermine” the government. Not so much these days.
There’s no bright line between the GLAD challenge and any other discrimination case brought against the DOD. If the government chooses to contest a suit for any reason, under this standard, it’s an effort to undermine the effectiveness of the military. Frankly, there’s not much keeping the DOJ from expanding this rationale to any other case brought against the government. That would put us a little beyond warnings about a slippery slope and into “that point where Wile E. Coyote hasn’t noticed he’s off the cliff yet.”
Not that GLAD’s challenge would’ve dangerously undermined effectiveness. General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated unequivocally that there isno problem with transgender troops if they meet standards. But as a career soldier, Milley cared more about merit and the ability to do the job. A civilian talk show host more interested in texting war plans to his buddies might have… different priorities.
Though all of this remains far afield of the instant issue: Susman Godfrey, giving money to an organization that has in the past filed a civil rights challenge, is not even in the same universe as a threat to national security.
But you miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take, I guess.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
Scottie's Playtime 