jay-z getty

Jay Z thought David Wells was Curt Schilling. Asked him about the bloody sock


Jay Z may have made the Yankee hat more famous than a Yankee can, but he apparently doesn’t know a Yankees player when he sees one:

I hope against hope that Wells played it totally cool, went with it and explained to Jay Z that “yeah, I totally faked that crap for the glory. My ankle was fine. It was barbecue sauce, actually.” Then I hope he tried to explain to Jay Z how the Earth was 6,000 years old and how he would’ve gotten to be in the “Celebrity Jeopardy” sketch if he wasn’t a Republican.

Curt Schilling: my comments were made in jest

Curt Schilling

Curt Schilling was on the Dan Patrick Show this morning, and made a point to tell the world that his comments saying that John Smoltz’s made the Hall of Fame because he’s a Democrat were clearly meant to be taken as a joke. Here he is:

As far as it relates to Smoltz, I’ll buy that he was joking. And I will grant that Schilling said in his interview the other day that he does not believe that all of the 180 or so votes he fell short of election were not all withheld from him by virtue of his political views.

But the fact remains that, in that interview, he went on to hold forth in a non-joking manner about how people have it in for him because of is personal views. And his joke was not that voters are out to get him for his views. It’s that Smoltz would ever be a Democrat. So, fairness to Schilling: no, he doesn’t believe John Smoltz is a Democrat. But he certainly thinks his political views are relevant to people’s consideration of him as a baseball player. And that’s the part that’s nuts.

Curt Schilling believes he didn’t make the Hall of Fame because he’s a Republican

Curt Schilling

Curt Schilling: wonderful pitcher. But a guy who probably needs to stop, you know, saying things.

The latest thing he said was that he didn’t get the Hall of Fame votes John Smoltz got because the voters are biased against him because he’s a Republican. Here he is on WEEI today, trying to get his head around John Smoltz’s support:

“I think he got in because of [Greg] Maddux and [Tom] Glavine. I think the fact that they won 14 straight pennants. I think his ‘Swiss army knife versatility,’ which somebody said yesterday, I think he got a lot of accolades for that, I think he got a lot of recognition for that. He’s a Hall of Famer,” Schilling said. “And I think the other big thing is that I think he’s a Democrat and so I know that, as a Republican, that there’s some people that really don’t like that.”

Actually, Smoltz is not a Democrat. He has been reported to be “an avowed Republican,” and has been courted for political office in the past by the Republican party. Here are Smoltz’s political contribution records. Note the little “Rs” next to the candidates’ names. Oh, and Smoltz once compared gay marriage to beastiality, which tends not to be a pinko-liberal stance.

So, shockingly, Curt Schilling is full of crap about something. I know that may be hard to accept, so if you need a minute to gather yourself, please, take it.

UPDATE: Schilling is tweeting now that he was just kidding about that, but go listen to the interview (relevant part starts at the 6:45 mark). While, yes, the hosts laughed when he said it, there is no suggestion that he was just joking. And then, immediately after that, he goes into a non-joking thing about how the media is biased against people like him, suggesting that he does in fact have a persecution complex about all of this.

Curt Schilling goes after Obama, says Ronald Reagan would watch “The Interview”


I hate it when people on Twitter tell me to “stick to baseball!” So I’d never tell anyone else to stick to baseball. Tweet about whatever you want! Especially you, Curt Schilling, because you’ve been endlessly entertaining lately.

Take last night for example when, for whatever reason, Schilling decided that it was irksome that President Obama would not commit to screening the movie “The Interview.” Schilling further decided that such a thing is the litmus test for a good president and let his followers know it:

Hmm. Sure about that, Schill? Because here’s what the White House museum website says:

Ronald Reagan watched very few films at the White House. He and Nancy watched most of their movies on their weekends at Camp David, preferring Jimmy Stewart movies, High Noon (the president’s favorite), and, on special occasions such as the president’s birthday, his own films.

“High Noon” and most Jimmy Stewart movies are really, really good. “The Interview,” despite the fact that it accidentally became a political cause in the past couple of weeks, is likely pretty bad. I feel like Reagan would give it a miss and watch “It’s a Wonderful Life” or “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” again. And he would be very, very right to do so.

Reagan watching some James Franco movie. As if. Really, Schilling, know your heroes better.

Curt Schilling is “stunned” at the atheists, liberals and Democrats who went after him on evolution

Curt Schilling

Curt Schilling takes to Facebook to say that he was misunderstood two weeks ago when he spoke out about evolution being a crock because there were no transitionary fossils, even though there are lots and lots of transitionary fossils. He said that “as a Christian I understand where man came from and how, regardless of whether I can imagine it, God did it, that’s good enough for me.” He added that “evolution within species” has been 100% proven and doesn’t dispute it.

Your mileage may vary as to how that squares with general scientific inquiry, but that’s his position. Of note: he was paid the fling baseballs and is now paid to offer the level of commentary we’ve come to expect from baseball commentators, not to be conversant with natural selection, so I’m inclined to forgive him his views on science because, as I said two weeks ago, science does not depend on Curt Schilling’s belief in it to be true and, unless he becomes a school board member or a U.S. Senator or something, his views on it don’t really affect my life.

He did go on, however, to note a certain commonality in his critics:

Unsure of what stunned me more, the anger, hatred and vile tweets from Atheists/Liberals, Democrats or the lack of Christians chiming in? . . . stunned at the language and commentary made by seemingly ‘adults’, scientists, teachers etc. Like they were 7 year olds on the playground again.

I understand why non-believers get upset at this conversation, because many know in their hearts that if it’s true their future is not in good shape. But the anger? Cussing? Every single follower I blocked had in their profile somewhere “Atheist” “Liberal” “Democrat” or some such label.

This does not surprise me. And it sucks that people were vile and obnoxious on Twitter. But it is Twitter, and that’s just how it rolls. If someone is being a jerk it doesn’t matter if they have the science on their side. They’re still being a jerk. I just hope that Schilling does not misunderstand the nature of jerks on the Internet like he appears to misunderstand science. Because Internet jerkery does not hew to any one party or religious line.