English vs. Leftish

Sunday, August 19, 2018, 22:54 EST Leave a comment

If you’re fortunate enough (and smart enough) to be multi-lingual, you know how useful it is to be able to understand and even converse with people who don’t speak your native tongue. In this age of political insanity, it is especially useful to know a language spoken by those on the left end of the political spectrum. I call that language, which uses actual English words but gives them entirely different meanings, Leftish.

Leftish has its roots in the propaganda long used by people of all political persuasions. But it did not begin to form as a separate language until the 1960s, when leftists began losing their minds. That was the decade when they said that Barry Goldwater would start World War III and U.S. soldiers killed Vietnamese babies. The language developed further in the 1980s with dire warnings that Ronald Reagan, if (re-)elected President, would start World War III (yes, they were already running out of ideas and yes, some still thing he almost did). Fast forward to the 2000s, when the next generation of the loony left declared that George W. Bush was Hitler. Most recently, they insist that Donald Trump is Hitler and everyone who doesn’t #resist him is a racist and a fascist and a Nazi. But enough about the history of Leftish.

For your edification, you will find herewith a sampling of actual entries from the very first edition of The Den Mother’s New Collegiate English-Leftist Dictionary (with a hat tip to Merriam-Webster for English definitions).

Word English Leftish
choice noun : a range of things that can be chosen noun : abortion
democracy noun : government by the people; especially rule of the majority noun : government by leftists, regardless of who constitutes the majority
fascist noun : one advocating strong autocratic or dictatorial control noun : anyone a leftist doesn’t like : synonym of Nazi
hate transitive verb : to feel extreme enmity toward : to regard with active hostility intransitive verb : to disagree with a leftist
immigrant noun : a person who comes to a country to live there noun : a person who comes to a country illegally to live there
journalism noun : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media noun : the process of deciding which facts the public shouldn’t know because they might reflect badly on leftists*
justice noun : the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals noun : the process or result of doing whatever leftists want
morality noun : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior noun : something you can’t legislate, unless it involves
Read more…
Advertisements
Categories: language, politics

Battling the Evil Foe

Monday, August 13, 2018, 23:34 EST Leave a comment

I do a fair amount of reading and posting on social media, mostly Twitter and Facebook, with an occasional post to Instagram or Snapchat just to pretend I’m hip. One thing I’ve noticed on Twitter is that there are a lot of leftists who have gone, shall we say, batshit crazy since Donald Trump was elected President.

Examples of said lunacy could (and will soon) fill another post. My point here is that most of them, while nuts, probably aren’t actually evil, with notable exceptions including the ironically self-titled “antifa” fascists who promote violence against Trump voters, the Bernie Sanders volunteer who attempted to assassinate Republican legislators at a baseball practice, and the actual member of Congress who encouraged her minions to stalk members of Trump’s cabinet and “create a crowd […] push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Because nothing says “Democrat” quite like excluding, by force, huge swaths of the nation’s population from public life.

Almost without exception, these more extreme leftists post their incitements to vandalism, assault, and homicide on Twitter with impunity, while mainstream consesrvative users get suspended for insulting someone. In response, some right-of-center folks migrated over to a social media site called Gab which was started in mid-2016 as a censorship-free alternative to Twitter. The trouble is that the promise of a totally open platform also attracted the far-right’s version of far-left eliminationists: neo-Nazi’s, white supremacists, and others who, for unfathomable reasons, consider themselves superiod to blacks, Jews, and others they imagine to be “lesser races.”

I can’t explain why, but over this last week I decided to get myself on Gab and confront the haters. I included in my profile that I wanted to challenge anti-semites. After less than a day, I was so rapidly and viciously attacked with the vilest racist sludge that my instinctive response was, “These people are possessed.” And I don’t mean that figuratively. Here’s a sampling of some of the tamer posts that came my way:

Jack Parsons @JackParsons
It’s okay, just remember that the (((Holocaust))) is a hoax.

James Herzog @TheRealJamesHerzog
The holocaust never happened but I wish it did.

jerry huxley @lestermacgurdy
“I was tired of the far-right anti-semitism I saw on a daily basis.”
Me too. it’s not as bad as the fucking niggers and kikes though.

One individual, in response to a post in which I quoted scripture regarding Jesus’s command to love one’s neighbor, claimed that this verse at the end of the parable of the ten gold coins (Luke 19:11-27)…

“Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.”

…proves that Jesus wanted the Jews gassed during the Holocaust.

The only other time in my life I felt so strongly like I was in the presence of true evil was back in the early 1990s when a Planned Parenthood abortionist, picketing a campaign event I was attending for a pro-life Congressional candidate, screamed in my face that “the best thing that could happpen” to me was to be raped and get pregnant.

Now, I’m an active Catholic who believes that the devil is real and at work through people here on earth. But I’ve never been one to confront troublemakers with shouts of, “The power of Christ compels you!” I’ve never even said an audible “Amen” in the middle of an especially inspiring homily. That’s why even I was surprised by my response to the attacks: I wrote that, in the name of Jesus, I rebuked Satan and prayed the love of Jesus to enter the hearts of the posters. Literally, that’s the kind of language I used. I went all exorcist on their bigotted asses. And as anyone who ever saw The Exorcist might expect, my invocation of Jesus’s name only riled them up more.

It might sound strange, and it’s certainly out of character for me, but I really do feel like I’m being asked by God to pray for deliverance for these people and to continue confronting them with scripture. Which is bound to be more effective than trying to reason with people who reject evidence and logic by simply claiming they are part of a worldwide campaign of misinformation by “the Jews.”

Oops!

Saturday, August 11, 2018, 22:04 EST Leave a comment

I just realized that most of the graphics (buttons, banners, etc.) in the sidebar are MIA. That’s because I recently got rid of my old web site, where those graphics resided. I still have them but have to upload them to WordPress. Bear with…

Categories: Uncategorized

Life Happens, But You Can’t Always See It Well

Saturday, August 11, 2018, 21:44 EST Leave a comment

Yes, I know. Every time I post after a long absence, I promise to stick around. The trouble is that I’m always thinking, I’ll post as soon as I have more time. As if that ever works. Anyhoo, here I am, for now. The future is uncertain for us all.

What’s been going on in the Den world? Or more appropriately, what hasn’t been going on? I need at least a few posts to even begin to answer that question, but the most recent development, a mere nine days ago, was cataract surgery. Frankly, I’m horrified that I developed cataracts at my not-so-advanced age (50-something). Many moons ago, my ophthalmologist (now retired) told me that if I were lucky, I’d develop cataracts young. His reasoning was that my vision was so terrible that I should want to get lens implants that would also correct my nearsightedness, which by last January required and eyeglasses prescription of -14.5 OD, -15.0 OS to allow me to sort of see.

When I first got glasses at age 6, I had to wear them all the time from the get-go, which means I probably should have gotten them sooner, but if bad vision is what you’re used to, how do you know to complain? In high school, I moved on to contact lenses, which I’ve worn without incident until the last few years when my eyes started getting dry in the evenings. Another ocular symptom of aging, apparently.

The truth is that my vision hasn’t been correctable to 20/20 in decades, but eye surgery was never something to which I aspired. My eyes may suck, I reasoned, but they’re the only eyes I have and every surgery carries risks and did you just say they have to cut into my eyeball? Nope, I’m not going there.

That was before my driving was adversely affected by the cloudiness and refractory properties (read: triple vision) my particular cataracts were causing. (Don’t get me wrong, I continued driving, but only in familiar areas and I was extra careful lest I get into an accident that would obviously be my fault.) So yes, I did a complete 180° on the topic and looked far and wide for a surgeon who could do the job ASAP. In May, I found one, and due to circumstances I won’t go into now, I got in to see him in ten days and got scheduled for my first surgery less than three months later. Evidently, being unable to see is sufficient motivation to put my fear aside and go under the knife. (If you’re curious what cataract surgery look like, watch this, unless watching someone’s eyeball be cut into freaks you out.)

To say I was nervous is the understatement of the year. I had to be at the hospital at 7:30 for 9:30 surgery, and at about 8:45, the anesthesiologist, Dr. Richmond, came in to go over my surgical history and medications and all that. I told him I wanted to go to sleep, be oblivious for the 15 minutes it takes to vacuum out the old, cloudy lens from my left eye and put a shiny new artificial one in its place, wake up, and go home. So when he told me that wasn’t possible because I had to be at least aware enough to respond to the surgeon’s instructions (“Look right, look left, look straight ahead,” or whatever), I was not pleased. But I can bargain with the best of them, and I made him a proposition. (No, not that kind of proposition. Get your mind out of the gutter.) I proposed that if at any point I were too conscious to be comfortable, I would tell him, and that would be his cue to give me sufficiently more sedative drugs to render me only as conscious as absolutely necessary and not a bit more. He agreed.

So what was the surgery like? I can’t tell you, because Dr. Richmond, whom I now call Dr. Feelgood, is the BEST ANESTHESIOLOGIST EVER. All I remember is about five seconds during which the surgeon, Dr. Luna, said, “Den Mother,” (OK, he used my actual name, but you get the point), “I need you to look straight at the light,” at which point I looked straight at the light. And that’s all I remember. Thinking back on it, I should have been scared shitless, having seen Poltergeist AND read enough about near-death experiences to know that “Go into the light” is usually not a good thing if you’re not quite ready to join either the dead or the undead. But I was too stoned to be worried, because Dr. Feelgood.

When I awoke, my eye hurt like a mofo. All my friends and relatives who’ve had cataract surgery, not to mention the surgeon himself, told me I’d feel not really pain but just discomfort, like the sensation of something in my eye that didn’t belong there. The sensation I felt was indeed like something was in my eye, but that something was a fork that stabbed my eye every time I blinked. Turns out I have “very sensitive eyes,” which is the highly technical term the surgeon used. To prevent the fork-stabbing sensation, he made a pressure patch for my eye that kept the eyelid closed (as opposed to the regular rigid patch they normally give you to keep you from accidentally poking yourself in said eye). By the next day when the patch came off, I felt pretty good, and it’s been all uphill since.

Did I mention that I CAN SEE?????? Well, out of one eye, anyway. Monday I’ll get the date for my right eye. I’m hoping for As Soon As Humanly Possible, as it’s slightly disorienting to have 20/20 vision in one eye and about 20/60 (with a contact lens) in the other. Also, I’d like to have it done before I go to Hawaii in September (a subject for another post). Until then, it’s enough to know that I can actually get to 20/20.

In the course of this whole ordeal, by the way, I learned that there is an actual medical term for what I always called “really bad vision”: bilateral pathologic myopia. Basically, it means that I am severely nearsighted in both eyes, caused (I never knew this part either) by an elongation of my eyeball. Myopia (nearsightedness) is caused by a slightly misshapen eyeball, but pathologic myopia is caused by a more severely misshapen eyeball, less like a basketball than like a rugby ball. That also makes me more susceptible to retinal tears and detachments because the retina is abnormally stretched, though the surgeon I saw at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary for a second opinion told me my retinas looked a lot better than he expected. I also have something called bilateral posterior vitreal detachment, which is actually fairly common as we age; it’s what causes “floaters,” those little squiggly things that appear to move across your field of vision when you blink. I’ve had floaters for a while and have pretty much gotten used to them.

All of which is a long way of saying that I couldn’t see very well two weeks ago but now I can, if only out of one eye, and I am most thankful to God, modern medicine, and Dr. Luna. And, of course, Dr. Feelgood.

Categories: health/safety

Just Thinking…

Friday, October 6, 2017, 20:24 EST Leave a comment

…about saying yet another good-bye to the love of my life last December. I did a few things immediately—deleted him from my cell phone, BlackBerry Messenger, and LinkedIn connections; changed the computer passwords that referenced him; put away the plaque he gave me for my 18th birthday (an Albert Camus quote, “Don’t walk behind me; I may not lead. Don’t walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend.”)—and resolved to move on once and for all. He was satisfied with the crumbs of our former relationship and I wanted the whole relationship. As the saying goes, when someone shows you who he is, believe him.

I haven’t written about it here, partly because I didn’t want to rip off the scab and partly because nothing worth writing had crystalized in my mind. But a song just shuffled up on my phone that hit the nail on the head back then. It was written by Stephen Stills, though it could have been written by me if only I had the songwriting talent of Stephen Stills. It’s comforting to know during challenging times that I’m not the only person who has ever been disappointed, and I certainly won’t be the last.

And so begins the task
I have dreaded the coming of for so long
I wait for the sun
To remind my body it needs resting

And I must learn to live without you now
I must learn to give only part somehow

Camping on the edge of your city, I wait
Hoping someday you might see beyond yourself
Shadows on the ceiling, hard but not real
Like the bars that cage you within yourself

And I must learn to live without you now
I must learn to give only part somehow

And I must learn to live without you now
As I cannot learn to give only part somehow

All of these cages must and shall be set aside
They will only keep us from the knowing
Actors and stages now fall before the truth
As the love shared between remains growing

And I must learn to without you now
As I cannot learn to give only part somehow

And that’s the end of that. Stay tuned for the next great adventure.

Categories: love

This Weekend, Remember: Memorial Day Is NOT Veterans Day

Sunday, May 28, 2017, 20:33 EST Leave a comment

Memorial-Day

It happens every year. Someone, on TV or radio or just in conversation, calls on Americans to thank soldiers and veterans for their service during Memorial Day weekend. Some people will correct that error, or so they believe, saying that Memorial Day is a day to remember all deceased service members. I am of the opinion that every day is an appropriate day to acknowledge soldiers and veterans, dead or alive. And we have a holiday for specifically that recognition. It just isn’t in May.

According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, here is the history of Memorial Day:

Three years after the Civil War ended, on May 5, 1868, the head of an organization of Union veterans — the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) — established Decoration Day as a time for the nation to decorate the graves of the war dead with flowers. Maj. Gen. John A. Logan declared that Decoration Day should be observed on May 30. It is believed that date was chosen because flowers would be in bloom all over the country. […]

By the end of the 19th century, Memorial Day ceremonies were being held on May 30 throughout the nation. State legislatures passed proclamations designating the day, and the Army and Navy adopted regulations for proper observance at their facilities.

It was not until after World War I, however, that the day was expanded to honor those who have died in all American wars. In 1971, Memorial Day was declared a national holiday by an act of Congress, though it is still often called Decoration Day. It was then also placed on the last Monday in May, as were some other federal holidays.

While Memorial Day is a uniquely American holiday, other nations observe a similar remembrance day. In fact, that’s what it’s called: Remembrance Day. Originally called Armistice Day, it takes place on November 11, the date the armistice ending hostilities in World War I went into effect. Remembrance Day is observed in the United Kingdom, Canada, and other nations that were part of the British empire during World War I. The United States originally observed Armistice Day as well but later changed it. Again, according to the VA:

Armistice Day was primarily a day set aside to honor veterans of World War I, but in 1954, after World War II had required the greatest mobilization of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen in the Nation’s history; after American forces had fought aggression in Korea, the 83rd Congress, at the urging of the veterans service organizations, amended the Act of 1938 by striking out the word “Armistice” and inserting in its place the word “Veterans.” With the approval of this legislation (Public Law 380) on June 1, 1954, November 11th became a day to honor American veterans of all wars.

And how you know that Memorial Day is a day set aside to honor not veterans in general, but those members of our armed forces who died in war. The next time someone gets it wrong, you can set them right.

Categories: history, holidays, military

Do You Remember the Christmas Story?

Sunday, December 25, 2016, 00:05 EST Leave a comment

This is a repeat of a post I’ve put up in many past years, though not the last two. It warrants bringing back. Merry Christmas to all.

StarIn those days, Caesar Augustus published a decree ordering a census of the whole Roman world. This first census took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All the people were instructed to go back to the towns of their birth to register. And so Joseph went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to “the city of David” — Bethlehem, in Judea, because Joseph was of the house and lineage of David; he went to register with Mary, his espoused wife, who was pregnant.

While they were there, the time came for her delivery. She gave birth to her firstborn, a son; she put him in a simple cloth wrapped like a receiving blanket, and laid him in a feeding trough for cattle, because there was no room for them at the inn.

There were shepherds in the area living in the fields and keeping night watch by turns over their flock. The angel of God appeared to them, and the glory of God shone around them; they were very much afraid.

The angel said to them, “You have nothing to fear! I come to proclaim good news to you—news of a great joy to be shared by the whole people. Today in David’s city, a savior—the Messiah—has been born to you. Let this be a sign to you; you’ll find an infant wrapped in a simple cloth, lying in a manger.

Suddenly, there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in high heaven!
And on earth, peace to those on whom God’s favor rests.”

When the angels had returned to heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go straight to Bethlehem and see this event that God has made known to us.” They hurried and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger; once they saw this, they reported what they had been told concerning the child. All who heard about it were astonished at the report given by the shepherds.

Mary treasured all these things and reflected on them in her heart. The shepherds went away glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, just as they had been told.

— Luke 2: 1-20

(Excerpted from The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Translation, Priests for Equality)

Categories: faith/religion

W.T.F. Is the Electoral College, Anyway?

Wednesday, November 9, 2016, 22:27 EST Leave a comment

Electoral MapHave you heard? There was an election yesterday! I’ll post more on that in the days to come, but for now I’ll just point out that if the numbers as certified right now were final, Hillary Clinton would win the popular vote, Donald Trump the electoral vote. Naturally, that has Hillary fans indignant, probably because they have no idea what the electoral vote is and why we have it.

For those who didn’t pay attention in high school history or civics class, as well as my readers from outside the United States, we Americans don’t directly vote for President and Vice President. Instead, we vote for electors, and in almost every state (Maine being the only exception, I think), the candidate whose electors get the most votes ends up winning the votes of all that state’s electors. The number of electors equals the number of the state’s United States Senators (two per state) plus the number of its members of the House of Representatives (proportional to the state’s population), such that larger states get more electoral votes, but no state gets fewer than three. So it doesn’t matter how many total people prefer any given candidate, but rather how many electors each candidate wins. If that sounds un-democratic, that’s because the United States isn’t actually a pure democracy. It’s a federal republic, and even though state and local offices are elected purely democratically, our constitution provides that it is the various states that elect the president and vice president. It’s a bit like the World Series; the winner isn’t the team that scores the most total runs, it’s the team that wins more games in the series.

What’s the point of the Electoral College? Simply put, it exists to prevent the country’s few humongous states from drowning out the voices of the rest of the citizenry. For the sake of convenience, let’s say there are five states, which break down by population and number of electors this way:

State Population Electors
California 12,400,000 55
Florida 6,500,000 29
Ohio 4,075,000 18
Kansas 1,350,000 6
Montana 675,000 3

Now here is a possible presidential election scenario:

State Candidate A Candidate B Electoral Votes
California 5,900,000 (47.58%) 6,500,000 (52.42%) 55 for Candidate B
Florida 3,400,000 (52.31%) 3,100,000 (47.69%) 29 for Candidate A
Ohio 2,120,000 (52.02%) 1,955,000 (47.98%) 18 for Candidate A
Kansas 705,000 (52.22%) 645,000 (47.78%) 6 for Candidate A
Montana 350,000 (51.85%) 320,000 (48.15%) 3 for Candidate A
Total 12,475,000 (49.90%) 12,525,000 (50.10%) Candidate A 56 – Candidate B 55

First, a few points. The elector numbers are real for the five states. The populations are fictitious but proportional to the actual populations of these states. Only a portion of the total population, adult citizens, are eligible to vote, and not all of them actually do so. There are many more than five states. The margins of victory from state to state aren’t that similar. Understanding all that, let’s examine at the results of our hypothetical election.

Candidate A wins Florida, Ohio, Kansas, and Montana by decent margins (3-6%). Candidate B wins California by a slightly larger margin. Because California is so populous, Candidate B gets more total votes, but by a slim margin&meash;only one-fifth of one percent. By popular vote, Candidate B very narrowly wins the presidency, even though four other states in different parts of the country with different concerns and interests preferred Candidate A.

But using the Electoral College, Candidate A—the candidate preferred by four of the five states—wins by one electoral vote. The more populous states got more electoral votes, which is as it should be, but the votes of the citizens in the four smaller states weren’t totally negated by the votes of Californians. It’s a compromise between simple majority rule and the premise, enshrined in our founding documents, of state sovereignty. It’s the same reason why Representatives are apportioned by population, but in the Senate all states are equal.

In only a few instances in our history has the winner of the popular vote not won the Electoral College, but when it has, it’s for reasons foreseen by the framers, when the popular vote was extremely close and the “tyranny of the majority” in a few big states would have essentially out-muscled the voters in the more numerous smaller states.

In a republic such as ours, I believe that compromise is entirely appropriate.

(10/06/2017: edited for clarity.)

Categories: government, politics

Ladies and Gentlemen, the World Champion Chicago Cubs

Thursday, November 3, 2016, 01:00 EST Leave a comment

[Cross-posted from the Triumphant Red Sox Fan Forum]

I haven’t posted here since the Red Sox lost game 1 of the ALDS to the Cleveland Indians. I figured I’d wait until a Sox win, which of course never happened. So I decided to root for the Cubbies, in solidarity with their long-suffering fans. The Cubs won the NLDS, then the NLCS, before falling behind 3 games to 1 in the World Series against those very same Indians. As a Red Sox fan from long before they actually won stuff, I knew that anything could happen. And, indeed, it did. The Cubbies came roaring back to force a game 7, which I watched with great interest. They took a commanding lead, then gave up the lead, sending the game into extra innings. Oh yeah, then there was a rain delay. Because of course.

But never mind all of that. I am thrilled to be able to say…

The Triumphant Red Sox fan enthusiastically congratulates the 2016 Chicago Cubs for their first World Series title since 1908. Their championship drought now stands at… zero years. How about that?

Feel free to right-click on that image to save it. Also, you can grab this one (or left-click for a .pdf you can also download):

Have a fun year, Chicago. Take it from me: it’ll be a blast.

Categories: sports

And Now, On the Lighter Side

Thursday, October 27, 2016, 21:03 EST Leave a comment

Just because the Den Mother can wax eloquent about the most pressing issues of the day doesn’t mean she is all work and no play. On the contrary, it is October, which in my world means the World Series, even if it’s Red Soxless.

It wasn’t so long ago (exactly 12 years, in fact) that my own beloved boys of summer made the hearts of New England’s loyal baseball fans take flight for the first time in a really long time. In 2004, everyone knew that the Red Sox and Cubs hadn’t won a championship, as my dear late father used to say, since Hector was a pup. The Cubs had last won it all in 1908, he Red Sox in 1918 (against, ironically, those same Cubs). Oddly enough, the Red Sox didn’t even have the longest drought in the American League at the time. That distinction (?) belonged to the other Sox, which are also the other Chicago team: the White Sox, who hadn’t won since 1917.

No matter. The BoSox won it all in 2004 (and again in 2007 and 2013), and their white-stockinged counterparts won in 2005, though at least one ChiSox fan hardly acted like it was anything at all. Just days after the series ended, I met a young-ish White Sox fan at the Baseball Hall of Fame and, upon wishing him enthusiastic congratulations on finally coming in from the wilderness, was met with a quizzical look. Apparently he didn’t realize his team had just earned its first World Championship in 88 years. Good riddance to him and those like him.

Anyhoo, fast forward to this year, when it so happens that the two teams battling it out for the title happen to be the teams with the two longest championship-free streaks in Major League Baseball. For those keeping score at home, here’s the list, with the number of years they’ve gone without a World Series title:

Chicago Cubs 108
Cleveland Indians 68
Texas Rangers 56*
Houston Astros 55*
Washington Nationals 48*
San Diego Padres 48*
Milwaukee Brewers 48*
Seattle Mariners 40*
Pittsburgh Pirates 37
Baltimore Orioles 33
Detroit Tigers 32
New York Mets 30
Los Angeles Dodgers 28
Oakland Athletics 27
Cincinnati Reds 26
Minnesota Twins 25
Colorado Rockies 24*
Toronto Blue Jays 23
Atlanta Braves 21
Tampa Bay Rays 19*
Arizona Diamondbacks 15
Los Angeles Angels 14
Miami Marlins 13
Chicago White Sox 11
Philadelphia Phillies 8
New York Yankees 7
St. Louis Cardinals 5
Boston Red Sox 3
San Francisco Giants 2
Kansas City Royals 1

*These teams have never won a World Series championship in their history.

Even before the playoffs, I said that the Cubs were the only team I wouldn’t be crushed to lose to in the World Series. So they are my team for the next 3-5 games. Go Cubbies.

Categories: sports