Curt Schilling

Curt Schilling: my comments were made in jest

87 Comments

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
249 Comments

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”

Reagan
253 Comments

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
239 Comments

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.

 

So Curt Schilling spent his evening arguing against the theory of evolution

Schilling
166 Comments

We’ve read all of the stories about Curt Schillng’s recovery from cancer and other attendant maladies. And they have been uplifting and encouraging. But maybe the most uplifting and encouraging evidence of Schilling’s recovery came last night when we learned that, finally, he is back to his old self, 100%.

How do we know this? Because he spent the night being bullheaded and annoying on the Internet.

You see, Schilling spent a great deal of time on Twitter last night arguing against the Theory of Evolution. Deadspin summarizes it here, but you can go to Twitter and see it in real time too. It’s quite a thing.

The main thrust of his argument were the old chestnuts about their being gaps in the fossil record and no real time evidence of evolution that we, as lay persons, have witnessed. No fossil of, say, a fish with legs like that “Darwin” sticker people put on the back of their Subarus. And no ape born in, like, the 1970s, which spontaneously turned into a human in 1986 or whatever. I didn’t see the entirety of his interactions with his followers, but I do hope at least one of them sent him a link explaining why that is pure, uncut and unadulterated hooey.

It used to always irk me when someone carried on like this. And yes, part of me is still a tad troubled by the fact that a guy who is paid to be an analyst has demonstrated a tendency to espouse his gut-held beliefs rather than actually deal with the evidence available that better-explains a phenomenon. I presume next year Schilling will be in the booth for Sunday Night Baseball and I wouldn’t bet even a nickel on him not arguing in favor of some unprovable folk wisdom about hitting or pitching rather than actually breaking down what happened objectively.

But for the most part I just smile at this sort of thing. The beauty of science, it has been said, is that it does not require that one believe in it to be true. Not even Curt Schilling, who is free to believe what he wants to believe, even if it’s wrong on just about every possible level. And even if that which he disbelieves played a crucial role in his ability to be here today disbelieving it.

Because if he’s doing that, man, we KNOW the old Curt Schilling is back. And however annoying that may be in the moment, I sleep better at night knowing that he is out there, somewhere, driving people absolutely nuts.