The Dictatorship
MLB’s ‘Golden At-Bat’ idea would alter baseball for the worse
Count me as one of those long-standing baseball fans who support every rule change of the past few years.
Baseball purists pooh-pooh these changes, but as far as I’m concerned, they’ve made the game exciting.
The pitch clock? Love it! It’s shortened games and ended the interminable at-bats that turned baseball into three- to four-hour marathons. Getting rid of the infield shift ended the ridiculous situation in which a second baseman was perched halfway in the outfield. The universal designated hitter (DH) is an unqualified improvement because no one really wants to watch a pitcher feebly try to make contact with a 98 mph fastball. Without the DH in the National League, we wouldn’t have gotten to see Shohei Ohtani’s epic MVP-winning season for the Los Angeles Dodgers.I even like the extra-innings ghost runner, because as much as baseball purists might love free baseball, nobody needs to sit through a meaningless regular season game as it stretches into the 14th inning.
Baseball purists pooh-pooh these changes, but as far as I’m concerned, they’ve made the game exciting.
There is, however, a limit, and Major League Baseball has reached it with the so-called Golden At-Bat.
What is the Golden At-Bat? It’s an idea that MLB commissioner Rob Manfred floated in a podcast interview last month, which would allow a team to choose one at-bat in every game and send its best hitter to the plate — even if he was already in the lineup and it wasn’t his turn to bat.There’s a word in Yiddish to describe an idea this bad — ferkakta. As in “this is the most ferkakta idea ever proposed for baseball, and it needs to die a quick and immediate death.”
The rule changes mentioned above worked because they are largely consistent with the history and traditions of baseball. Defensive shifts penalized pull hitters and fundamentally changed the game. Ending them returned the game to how it’s been played for much of its history.
Clock timers might be inconsistent with a game that has long differed from other sports in that it has no timer. (Though it has had a “pitch timer” rule on the books since 1901it was never truly enforced.) But it didn’t change the fundamental character of the sport — and in key respects, it reined in the excesses of the last few decades, when hitters dragged out at-bats forever to tire starting pitchers and pitchers, in turn, interminably fidgeted between pitches.
There’s a word in Yiddish to describe an idea this bad — ferkakta.
Baseball has also never been immune to rule changes that improved the quality of the game or created more offense. In the late 1960s, after years of dominant pitching, MLB lowered the mounds, shrank the strike zone and began cracking down on doctored pitches to increase offense and make the game more exciting for fans. In the near term, it worked (though expansion likely played a crucial role, too).Recent changes like clock timers, a limit on pitchers’ throwing to first base to keep potential base stealers close, the universal DH and increasing the size of the bases to encourage stolen bases were all efforts to help hitters and make the game more exciting for fans. After all, baseball isn’t just a sport — it’s a consumer product, and keeping the customer happy and engaged and returning to the ballpark is no small consideration.
But these changes — with arguably the exception of the DH — were also consistent with baseball traditions. None of them fundamentally changed the way the game is played.
A Golden At-Bat is different: It runs counter to the history and ethos of baseball. Allowing a player to leapfrog his teammates and come to the plate in a high-leverage situation has no precedent in baseball history. It’s a bastardization of lineup construction and the batting order, which are fundamental strategies that teams have honed for more than a century.
Imagine this scenario: It’s the bottom of the ninth inning, one out, the Dodgers are down by a run, and the scheduled batter, Ohtani, comes to the plate. He strikes out, but because there’s one out and the Dodgers haven’t used their Golden At-Bat, he gets to bat again! Or what if Ohtani makes the last out of the eighth inning but gets to come back in the ninth to bat again? There’s nothing in baseball history that presages a situation like that. If baseball allowed Golden At-Bats, it would fundamentally change the character of the sport.
Perhaps more than any of the four major sports, baseball is a team game. In football, the squad with the best quarterback usually prevails. The same goes for the team with the best player in basketball and the best goaltender in hockey. Obviously, these are team sports, too, but in all three, the best players have a disproportionate impact on the outcome. The same is sometimes true in baseball, but America’s pastime is more the sum of its parts than other sports — and the idea of a Golden At-Bat contradicts that fundamental notion.Former manager Joe Maddon noted in a piece at The Athletic by Jayson Stark, “There’s no way you can convince me that you’re going to take this (non-star) part of the team and kind of make them moot in tough situations. When a team succeeds in these circumstances (and the non-stars come through), it really builds a lot within the group.”
The best question about the Golden At-Bat, however, is what problem is this proposal solving? Proponents argue that it will create viral moments in which the best hitter faces the other team’s best pitcher — like the conclusion of the 2023 World Baseball Classic when Ohtani, as a pitcher, faced off against his then-Los Angeles Angels teammate Mike Trout.
But baseball has plenty of these viral moments, with future Hall of Famers and no-name stars.
Think about some of the greatest moments in baseball playoff history — and the unsung and unexpected heroes who saved the day.
The best question about the Golden At-Bat is what problem is this proposal solving?
In 2016, it was light-hitting Cleveland outfielder Rajai Davis cracking a game-tying home run off of the Chicago Cubs’ closer extraordinaire, Aroldis Chapman, in Game 7 of the World Series. In 2020, seldom-used Tampa Bay Rays outfielder Brett Phillips knocked in the game-winning run against the Dodgers in Game 4 of the World Series. St. Louis Cardinals fans will never forget David Freese, who hit the game-winning home run in the bottom of the 11th inning to send them to Game 7 and a World Series victory.In 1992, third-string catcher Francisco Cabrera hit the game-winning single to send the Atlanta Braves to the World Series — in what to this day is one of the most exciting moments I’ve ever seen in a baseball game. Does anyone remember Steven Pearce? Boston Red Sox fans do. He was the hero of the 2018 World Series, with three home runs, and he was named series MVP.
Then there is former New York Yankees infielder Bucky f—ing Dentthough the less said about him and the 1978 American League East one-game playoff, the better.
What about the 2024 playoffs? Sure, future Hall of Famer Dodgers first baseman Freddie Freeman hit an epic grand slam in Game 1 of the World Series, but who can forget Cleveland Guardians Jhonkensy Noel’s towering game-tying home run in the American League Championship Series? The fact that he was a relatively unknown player, stepping up in the most crucial of playoff situations, made the moment that much greater.
I’m not some crusty purist who thinks baseball should be played like it was when Ty Cobb or Joe DiMaggio were running the bases. Like any sport, baseball must evolve and shouldn’t get stuck in its hidebound traditions. But it also shouldn’t descend into gimmickry, and that’s what the Golden At-Bat would represent. Change baseball for the better, but don’t turn it into something it’s never been.
Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”
The Dictatorship
Trump’s next Smithsonian target: A future women’s history museum
President Donald Trump has sought to remake Smithsonian institutions in his image during his term in office.
Now, House Republicans are setting their sights on another museum Trump has targeted — and it’s one that is still years away from being built.
This week, a group of House Republicans used a committee vote on a bill intended to establish a location for the forthcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum to pass an amendment stipulating that the museum must not include transgender women in its exhibitions or content.
“The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women in the United States,” the new amendment states, in a section called “scope of mission.”
“The Museum may not identify, present, describe, or otherwise depict any biological male as a female,” it continues.
Sponsored by Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., — who Trump has endorsed for re-election — the amendment furthers an executive order the president signed last Marchin which he demanded the forthcoming museum “not recognize men as women in any respect.”
“The accomplishments of real women should never be overshadowed by biological men pretending to be women,” Miller said Wednesday at the committee markup of the bill.
The proposal comes as the latest effort from Trump and his allies to erase trans people from public life. It’s also their latest attempt to exert greater control over the Smithsonian, an independent, public-private partnership established by Congress and overseen by a Board of Regents that includes the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the vice president.
If passed, Miller’s amendment would also give Trump the final say on the museum’s location if he doesn’t approve of the one proposed by the Smithsonian and Congress, which is the lot across from the National Museum of African American History and Culture.
The top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., said he was “extremely disappointed” that Miller and Republicans had “needlessly politicized” what has otherwise been a bipartisan process to kowtow to Trump, whom the Democrat said is trying to “regulate” and “whitewash” history.
The amendment ultimately passed the committee 7 to 4 along party lines.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the bill amended by Miller, said she was “pleased” to see it pass out of committee but disappointed that Democrats opposed it.
It will now head to a floor vote, where it is likely to pass under the Republican majority. Spokespeople for Miller; House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.; and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., did not respond to MS NOW’s questions, including when it could come up for a floor vote.
Congress authorized the building of both the women’s history museum and another museum dedicated to American Latinos in 2020. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., introduced a separate bill last year allocating a location for the Latino museum, which has yet to make it out of committee. In an interview with NBC News earlier this year, Malliotakis blamed Johnson for the holdup on the passage of the bill, which she introduced in February of last year.
She also said she hoped to pass the bill — which has more than 230 bipartisan cosponsors — during Women’s History Month in March.
While the Smithsonian originally offered a decade-long timeline for the museums openings, the process has been slower-moving over the past six years. A spokesperson for the Smithsonian told MS NOW there is currently no planned opening date and the institution does not comment on pending legislation in Congress.
Democrats may have little power to stop the amendment, but they are not staying quiet about it.
Members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus called the amendment a “poison pill” that would give the president undue power over site.
“A museum about women, fought for and supported by women, should not be controlled by one man,” the group’s leaders said.
Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, pointed out that the original bill that authorized the museum’s creation in 2020 did not address the specific content of its programming, other than requiring it to portray “the diverse range of experiences and viewpoints of all women” in the U.S. However, Takano also noted, “the Museum should highlight the experiences of all women, including transgender women.”
The Smithsonian spokesperson said it’s “too early for us to discuss exhibitions in a museum that hasn’t been built yet.”
If the bill passes with the anti-trans amendment, the Smithsonian would likely have leeway on how to interpret it, or whether to follow it, given that the institution has insisted on its independence even in the face of Trump’s threats. However, Congress controls the majority of its funding and could threaten to withhold money if officials wanted to force the museum to comply.
A source with knowledge of the planning process for the museum also told MS NOW that they believe Smithsonian leadership is “concerned about blowback and escalation” given recent events.
In last year’s executive orderTrump alleged the Smithsonian had “come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and demanded Vice President JD Vance take a greater role in overseeing funding for the institute’s programming. As part of a subsequent content review, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History removed references to Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit before restoring them days later following a public outcry. In December, the White House also issued a letter to Smithsonian leadership demanding extensive documentation on planned programming and threatening to withhold federal funds if those demands were not fulfilled.
“I think the museum leadership sees our historical moment as one of existential crisis for the Smithsonian,” the source familiar with the planning told MS NOW. “And their deepest commitment is to the survival of the institution.”
Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.
The Dictatorship
Trump is planning a Christian ‘revival’ for America’s 250th anniversary
The Trump administration’s plans to celebrate the country’s upcoming 250th anniversary are shaping up to be an exhibition of Christian nationalist extremism.
The president — who has been found liable for fraud and sexual abuse and who has upset some in his own movement with his suggestion that he isn’t bound for heaven — has eagerly wrapped himself in Scripture and packed his administration with religious zealots who wish to erode the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
And a new report from The New York Times spotlights the cadre of right-wing evangelicals who joined an event last month to plan a slate of explicitly Christian-centered programming in the lead-up to the 250th anniversary celebrations. One of the people in attendance was Eric Metaxas, the far-right media figure and promoter of election conspiracy theories who has touted his belief that Christians should “infiltrate” government.
What we know of the programming thus far suggests it will serve to reinforce the view that the country’s laws and customs have always been, and must be, rooted in Christianity — or at least the conservative movement’s interpretation of its teachings.
The Times’ report spotlighted an event called “Rededicate 250,” which is scheduled for May 17. The White House says it will feature a “large-scale revival” on the National Mall.
One of the people apparently helping plan the programming is a self-described Christian nationalist named Sean Feucht, who has portrayed himself as an informal adviser of sorts to Trump officials. He has been a fixture alongside Scott Turner, secretary of Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Last year, Feucht said he had been tapped to give “divine perspective” on California’s wildfire recovery effortsand he joined Turner on a tour of damaged sites. At the time, a HUD spokesperson told MS NOW that Feucht wasn’t saying he had an “official role” — though he very well may have had an unofficial role. Feucht also performed onstage at a Christian worship session hosted by HUD on the National Mall last September — an event quite similar to the one set for May.
Feucht was specifically named by Rep. Jared Huffman last month, in a news release the California Democrat sent out rebuking the “whitewashing” and “corruption” surrounding the 250th anniversary events. Huffman cited Feucht’s claims of having collaborated with Trump officials on “revival meetings sponsored by the U.S. government,” as part of what the congressman called “Christian nationalism on the taxpayer dime.”
“The Trump administration is using this celebration to further erode church-state separation and force extreme Christian Nationalism on the American people,” the news release said, “pushing a false narrative that our country was founded as a Christian nation.”
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
The Dictatorship
Trump v. Roberts: The president crashes out online while the chief stays the course
Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers.The Supreme Court added to the term’s already heavy docket, agreeing on Monday to considerthe Trump administration’s quest to quickly end humanitarian protections for Haitians and Syrians.
Yet the week’s court news arguably started Sunday night, when President Donald Trump lashed out on social media. He complained in lengthy postsabout the tariffs ruling (which he mischaracterized) and other gripes, including the 2020 election loss that still haunts him and his disappointment in the court’s Republican appointees.
He referred to the “Democrats” and “Republicans” on the courtforgoing the more precise, if euphemistic, label of Democratic and Republicanappointees. The president groused on Truth Social that GOP justices “openly disrespect the Presidents who nominate them to the highest position in the Land.”
By “openly disrespect,” he apparently meant some of the Republican appointees occasionally rule against him. At the risk of stating the obvious, the court has been helpful to Trump, both personally and presidentially.
But it’s not the Trump Court. It’s the Roberts Court. And though there’s overlap between the two, Chief Justice John Robertsis playing a longer game. That means the court occasionally checks the Republican president, even while largely approving his policies and keeping him out of prison.
Roberts didn’t directly respond to Trump’s latest meltdown. But he happened to have a public appearance on Tuesday, at which he put yet more distance between himself and the president. While in conversation with a federal judge at Rice University in Houston, the chief justice called personal attacks on judges “dangerous,”and he deemed “absurd”the notion that justices carry forward the agenda of the presidents who appointed them.
Again, he didn’t call out Trump by name.But one needn’t squint to see the application to the president’s tariffs crash-out, which has featured calling justices who ruled against him traitors and embarrassments to their families.
Still, Roberts can’t escape Trump, who has continued to dominate the high court’s docket,even when the litigation doesn’t directly involve him. Take Steve Bannonwhose appeal the justices considered at their private conference on Friday. The Justice Department is supporting the Trump ally’s bidto upend his contempt conviction, and we may learn as soon as Monday morning whether the justices are prepared to bless that partnership.
After the court issues its order list at 9:30 a.m. ET on Monday, which could have news on Bannon’s petition and many others, the court will kick off its March argument sittingwith a hearing in Watson v. RNC. The court’s latest foray into election litigation ahead of the midterms concerns timing rules for casting ballots. Solicitor General D. John Sauer is set to appearin support of the Republican National Committee, which wants to block mail ballotsreceived after Election Day, even if they’re sent by then.
Have any questions or comments for me? Pleasesubmit them through this formfor a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship6 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics11 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’







