Shooting in VA park, Steve scalise shot

[Pogo]

So.. The mystery to me here is ----

This guy buys a rifle. Is reported to the POlice for practicing in the back yard. Says goodbye to the wife, disa-fucking-pears for FIVE WEEKS --- with the rifle. Tells family/friends he's going to D.C to "protest".. And every ONE of them KNOWS he's "radicalized"...

Why is the wife not under interrogation? Nothing strange about taking a brand new rifle to Washing-noguns-town DC for a PROTEST? And is living out of his van?? Her story better be good..

Good point. There has to be more to that.

Do we know she, or others, are not being questioned?

Dunno -- all the "journalists" lack that ability to think for themselves and FIND stories. Too busy making up shit.

Or perhaps their editors passing over such stories in favor of what sells. Emotion after all is what sells --- some nut goes on a shooting rampage = gold mine. When that subsides you re-run endless witness accounts to milk some more. Then you trot in the conspiracy theorists to stir fear and loathing.

The more analytical questions of circumstantial background are not nearly so sexy. They don't sell enough papers. Well we can't have that when there's money to be milked from emotion, so "let's take you to San Francisco because -- yay -- we have another shooting we can milk". Lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

Such are the wages of news-for-profit.

 

[Pogo]

This doesn't even make any sense. Perhaps you might wanna cut back on the aerosol propellants. Just a suggestion.

I simply noted that the fatal blanket generalization/Composition Fallacy used by the shooter to arrive at "must....shoot.... Republicans" is exactly the same fucked-up fallacy that the drones here who have busied themselves all day murmuring "must.... associate... with ...and.... condemn.... Democrats ... or ... left.... or.... Sanders.... or ....".

Same fallacy. No difference. Self-absorbed zombies, all. See also "hoist with own petard".

/---- Apparently you never noticed Republicans don't have a heard mentality like you DemocRATS. And unless you have the super power of mind reading or super hearing how could you know anyone murmurs ""must.... associate... with ...and.... condemn.... Democrats ... or ... left.... or.... Sanders.... or ...."

"Heard mentality"?
That's a good pun. I gotta use it somewhere.

I'm not a member of any political party, Stupid -- speaking of "heard mentality".

You need to free yourself of this childlike dichotomy mentality where the world is made up of no more than two elements called "Democrat" and "Republican". Personally, much as it makes me uneasy to be part of a large majority, I'm part of the largest political party faction in these United States. It's called "None".

Imagine that --- there's a whole 'nother universe out there you never heard of, because you were too busy yammering about "heard mentality" to be listening.

Wow! You have some serious delusions of grandeur going on there, Mr. Pogo.

Lemme guess, you have a mirror right next to your monitor, huh?

Lemme guess -- you spelled "Cellblock" wrong huh?

Let's watch it again in slo-mo for those by whom it whizzed:

Apparently you never noticed Republicans don't have a heard mentality like you DemocRATS.

Does it still fly over your ten-gallon? Because I'm not sure there's a lower reading level to reduce it down to.

Are you saying you're incarcerated, Pogo?

I probably should have quoted your other self-aggrandizing post to better make my point.

The point stands untouched despite the deflection attempt; the Double Fallacy of Composition/Generalization remains the foundation of the vast majority of the puerile adolescent rhetoric on this board, particularly on this issue, which lunges desperately to jump on the backs of assault victims and corpses, that they may tell themselves they "scored" some sort of "points" on an imaginary scoreboard for their imaginary "team" that represents the only faux-satisfaction their simplistic tiny little minds can spit onto their piddling wasted lives.

And there's diddly you can do about that, except to join me in denouncing said fallacy, which has absolute zero to do with anyone's "political persuasion". If, of course, you have the spine, which is a big "if".

That passage has nothing to do with "self-aggrandizement". Has nothing even to do with 'self'. It refers to the wildly popular (read: cancerous) logical fallacy, exactly as it says. It's been rampant on this issue, as it usually is whenever said wags smell an opportunity to 'score' said 'points'. That's --- uh -- exactly why it's introduced with that specific fallacy in the intro you didn't put in boldface.

 

[Marion Morrison]

/---- Apparently you never noticed Republicans don't have a heard mentality like you DemocRATS. And unless you have the super power of mind reading or super hearing how could you know anyone murmurs ""must.... associate... with ...and.... condemn.... Democrats ... or ... left.... or.... Sanders.... or ...."

"Heard mentality"?
That's a good pun. I gotta use it somewhere.

I'm not a member of any political party, Stupid -- speaking of "heard mentality".

You need to free yourself of this childlike dichotomy mentality where the world is made up of no more than two elements called "Democrat" and "Republican". Personally, much as it makes me uneasy to be part of a large majority, I'm part of the largest political party faction in these United States. It's called "None".

Imagine that --- there's a whole 'nother universe out there you never heard of, because you were too busy yammering about "heard mentality" to be listening.

Wow! You have some serious delusions of grandeur going on there, Mr. Pogo.

Lemme guess, you have a mirror right next to your monitor, huh?

Lemme guess -- you spelled "Cellblock" wrong huh?

Let's watch it again in slo-mo for those by whom it whizzed:

Apparently you never noticed Republicans don't have a heard mentality like you DemocRATS.

Does it still fly over your ten-gallon? Because I'm not sure there's a lower reading level to reduce it down to.

Are you saying you're incarcerated, Pogo?

I probably should have quoted your other self-aggrandizing post to better make my point.

The point stands untouched despite the deflection attempt; the Double Fallacy of Composition/Generalization remains the foundation of the vast majority of the puerile adolescent rhetoric on this board, particularly on this issue, which lunges desperately to jump on the backs of assault victims and corpses, that they may tell themselves they "scored" some sort of "points" on an imaginary scoreboard for their imaginary "team" that represents the only faux-satisfaction their simplistic tiny little minds can spit onto their piddling wasted lives.

And there's diddly you can do about that, except to join me in denouncing said fallacy, which has absolute zero to do with anyone's "political persuasion". If, of course, you have the spine, which is a big "if".

That passage has nothing to do with "self-aggrandizement". Has nothing even to do with 'self'. It refers to the wildly popular (read: cancerous) logical fallacy, exactly as it says. It's been rampant on this issue, as it usually is whenever said wags smell an opportunity to 'score' said 'points'. That's --- uh -- exactly why it's introduced with that specific fallacy in the intro you didn't put in boldface.

Allow me to emphasize more for your lack of introspection:

"vast majority of the puerile adolescent rhetoric on this board"

"their simplistic tiny little minds can spit onto their piddling wasted lives"


^ Apparently Pogo thinks he's better than the "vast majority" no?

Right here, Pogo.

You're just another brick in the wall.

You may be sharp as a brick.

 

[usmbguest5318]

They just released it: James Hodgkinson, 66 years old, of Belleville, IL.

Probably listened to Dimocrats, and was afraid he was going to lose his Medicare.

Do you know the shooter? I'm just wondering how you can credibly speculate on what the man's motivations were.

He was a leftwing Bernie supporter, this is the fault of the violent rhetoric coming from the left, they've been rioting and attacking republicans across the nation because they are fascist pigs who hate democratic elections, this guy just went to the inevitable next step.

And all that has what to do with the plausibility of the man traveling to the D.C. area and shooting people because he was ticked off over potentially losing his Medicare benefit?

Because the left has called for exactly that?

Prof: House GOP ‘should be lined up and shot’ That's a tenured professor bud.

The point of my initial question to you was to understand if you have a credible basis for asserting that Hodgkinson "was afraid he was going to lose his Medicare." All you really had to do was say "no" and that would have been the end of our interaction. Instead, you started "pulling shi*t outta your ass"..."sh*t" that has absolutely nothing to do with the very specific cause you posited publicly.

Just because can come up with some silly notion doesn't mean there's any sound basis for having that notion. People with a modicum of sound reasoning skills at the very least know when their ideas are irrational and they're willing to "own" as much because they don't have to prove anything. They can say things like, "I just think 'such and such' because I do -- it's just a gut feeling I have -- not because it's a well considered idea that is sound." Why might they say something like that? Because they are mature and self-confident enough to know (1) their "rep" isn't dependent on what they do/say about "that" idea and (2) the idea is something that irrationally "came out of left field; thus isn't sage enough to merit their risking embarrassing themselves by trying to defend it. Kenny Rogers referred to it as "knowin' when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em."

Prof: House GOP ‘should be lined up and shot’

That's a tenured professor bud.

He is a professor teaching in the Media Arts and Animation department. I would no sooner give any credence to what that man thinks about health care/insurance, political science and/or strategy, or the business and economics of health care/insurance than anyone should give me with my MBA and economics background credence on matters of animation and media arts. I'm sure I can find a tenured professor of economics or business who has an opinion about something having to do animation and media arts, but the mere fact that they are a tenured professor that doesn't make their opinion in that regard be worth hearing or heeding. If they are opining about business or economics, well, then there's reason to pay attention to what they have to say.

Be that as it may, Dr. Griffin wasn't the shooter.

I live in D.C. and I know a few liberals and Democrats. Not one has ever:

Mentioned the website you referenced. I can't say they are even aware it exists.
I know of nobody who's mentioned Dr. Griffin and his ideas. Do you have a credible basis for thinking Hodgkinson was aware of Dr. Griffin's remarks?

• Dr. Griffin is an art school professor. What sound reasoning makes you think his recent declaration "that House Republicans 'should be lined up and shot' for their passage of an Obamacare-replacement bill" was seen as an incitement upon which Hodgkinson committed to act?
• Dr. Griffin is an art school professor. Are you a member of "the left?"
  • Why are you even aware of what that man has had to say about anything, other perhaps than art?
  • Why would you even cite the guy's comments about his dismay over the House vote on the O-care replacement/repeal?

Because the left has called for exactly that?

• Are you a member of "the left?"
• Was Dr. Griffin announced to be among the bona fide spokespersons for "the left?" If not, why did you cite his remarks as though he has been?
• Do you have good reason to believe that because some person "on the left" says something that everyone "on the left" is aware of, or more specifically that Hodgkinson was aware of all that any person "on the left" had to say?

I'm just trying to understand why the fact that "the left has called for exactly that" makes it be plausible in your mind that Hodgkinson traveled to the D.C. area to shoot people because he was ticked off over potentially losing his Medicare benefits.

That's a tenured professor bud.

Of course, I wrote all stuff above before checking on the one assertion that you, in your most recent post (quoted above) made only to find out that you are just spewing sh*t outta your ass by making assertions (1) that you lack the information needed to make and (2) that don't and would not add value to the conversation were they true.

The Art Institute of Washington, which is where Dr. Griffin is a full-time professor, does not offer tenure.

The one damned complete declarative sentence that in that post is also your prose and it's not even accurate. Dude, go talk with someone who has the patience to put up with your indolently perfunctory mendacity.

That was a whole lot of verbiage to say a whole lot of nothing, you got me on the tenure, the rest of what I said stands, Zuckerburg has scrubbed his facebook but we have the screen shots and it reads like a ten person CNN panel.

"Stands?" It stands about as well as one legged man in an ass kicking contest. What have you written in the course of this conversation?

• You presented a bunch of unrelated generalizations in support of the very specific claim (made by another member) that Hodgkinson "was afraid he was going to lose his Medicare." (Logical flaw: non sequitur)
• You claimed to be data mining Hodgkinson and, presumably, expect us to believe you are indeed doing so even as it's patently clear you have neither the most basic of tools for doing so nor the detail oriented frame of mind and rigorously critical thinking aptitude to do so.

Do you not recall the following dialogue?

What difference does it make if the shooter's name is released or not released?

It matters when you are trying to data mine him. Duh....

Are you trying to do that?

Yes.

What, you can't do that for yourself?

I don't Facebook.

How earnestly can you be data mining the guy when you (1) think that doing so in part calls for reviewing one's Facebook pages and other information and (2) don't even maintain a Facebook account so you can view it for yourself? (I don't "Facebook" either, but I'm taking your implied word for it that one must do so in order to view the Facebook pages of people who do.)

Also, data mining is all about performing a detailed gathering and analysis of data and information.

• You don't so much as pay attention to the squiggles that indicate you've misspelled something. Why would anyone believe that you pay close attention to interrelationships one might find among the disparate information gathered during data mining?
  

  Zuckerburg has scrubbed his facebook

• You appear to have no awareness of which of your inferences are sound and which are not. Data one mines is of no value when the person analyzing it isn't highly logical and circumspect about the inferences they made based on the data they mine.
  
  Click the link in the following sentence for an example of your eristicality. "You presented a bunch of unrelated generalizations in support of the very specific claim (made by another member) that Hodgkinson "was afraid he was going to lose his Medicare." (Logical flaw: non sequitur)" The problem isn't that you say/think controversial things; the problem is the controversial things you conjure and utter are unfounded.
• You don't bother to check the veracity of the details of your own claims.
  

  That's a tenured professor bud.

  The Art Institute of Washington, which is where Dr. Griffin is a full-time professor, does not offer tenure.

  you got me on the tenure

  
  I didn't "[get] you on the tenure." You "got" you by irrationally inferring that the man is a tenured professor and then not doing one of the following:
  • Confirming the soundness of your inference by checking to see if the man is tenured.
  • Limiting what you thought/wrote to that which was stated in the article you referenced or inferable validly, via sound deductive reasoning.

Thus, even were you indeed attempting even to data mine the guy, you wouldn't be doing a fair, let alone good, job of it. Indeed, your efforts would be so poor as to not merit calling them "data mining."

Now you introduced the term "data mining" and attested to doing it. (Click the link in the preceding sentence to learn what data mining actually entails.) Truly, you could have, in response to my question of whether you are data mining him, simply said something to the effect of "No. I'm not data mining him; I used that term too loosely. I merely want to see what's on his Facebook page, and I am unwilling to join Facebook so I can see it directly for myself."

Something along those lines is what I expected you to write in response to my question, but you wrote nothing of the sort. I expected that because data mining is something my firm does for clients; thus I know few people have the resources and skills to do even a halfway decent job of it on their own. But I don't know you, so I asked rather than assume you are not among that few. From your subsequent remarks, I can tell for sure that you are not among the few. You could have "owned" the fact that is the case, but you did not.​

Zuckerburg has scrubbed his facebook

Someone may have, but Mark Zuckerberg almost certainly did not.

Here again, your lack of attention to detail and disregard for accuracy shows. How hard could it have been to write "Facebook" or "Facebook personnel" rather than "Zuckerberg?"

you got me on the tenure

Okay, but I didn't "get" you that. You "got" yourself. (See red italics above.)

I'm not here to "get" anyone. I merely am a careful reader of what people write; thus when folks write things that don't line up with what I know or suspect is so, I double check -- their cited facts as well as the rigor of their reasoning -- to be sure of whether it is I or they who is mistaken. If the mistake is material, or they've made a big deal about them, I express my objection to the conclusions/inferences they have made based on their errant facts/reasoning. I don't generally argy-bargy with folks who "own" their mistakes. Everyone makes them, so there's no point in my doing so.

 

[Marion Morrison]

So.. The mystery to me here is ----

This guy buys a rifle. Is reported to the POlice for practicing in the back yard. Says goodbye to the wife, disa-fucking-pears for FIVE WEEKS --- with the rifle. Tells family/friends he's going to D.C to "protest".. And every ONE of them KNOWS he's "radicalized"...

Why is the wife not under interrogation? Nothing strange about taking a brand new rifle to Washing-noguns-town DC for a PROTEST? And is living out of his van?? Her story better be good..

Good point. There has to be more to that.

Do we know she, or others, are not being questioned?

Dunno -- all the "journalists" lack that ability to think for themselves and FIND stories. Too busy making up shit.

Or perhaps their editors passing over such stories in favor of what sells. Emotion after all is what sells --- some nut goes on a shooting rampage = gold mine. When that subsides you re-run endless witness accounts to milk some more. Then you trot in the conspiracy theorists to stir fear and loathing.

The more analytical questions of circumstantial background are not nearly so sexy. They don't sell enough papers. Well we can't have that when there's money to be milked from emotion, so "let's take you to San Francisco because -- yay -- we have another shooting we can milk". Lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

Such are the wages of news-for-profit.

So do tell us again why you aren't out there doing it, getting busy?

 

[Pogo]

So.. The mystery to me here is ----

This guy buys a rifle. Is reported to the POlice for practicing in the back yard. Says goodbye to the wife, disa-fucking-pears for FIVE WEEKS --- with the rifle. Tells family/friends he's going to D.C to "protest".. And every ONE of them KNOWS he's "radicalized"...

Why is the wife not under interrogation? Nothing strange about taking a brand new rifle to Washing-noguns-town DC for a PROTEST? And is living out of his van?? Her story better be good..

Good point. There has to be more to that.

Do we know she, or others, are not being questioned?

Dunno -- all the "journalists" lack that ability to think for themselves and FIND stories. Too busy making up shit.

Or perhaps their editors passing over such stories in favor of what sells. Emotion after all is what sells --- some nut goes on a shooting rampage = gold mine. When that subsides you re-run endless witness accounts to milk some more. Then you trot in the conspiracy theorists to stir fear and loathing.

The more analytical questions of circumstantial background are not nearly so sexy. They don't sell enough papers. Well we can't have that when there's money to be milked from emotion, so "let's take you to San Francisco because -- yay -- we have another shooting we can milk". Lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

Such are the wages of news-for-profit.

So do tell us again why you aren't out there doing it, getting busy?

Because I have principles, a primary one of which is that truth is far more important than profit.

 

[Pogo]

>> The game will go on because the game must go on, and it has never been more important for it to be played than it is tonight.

That has been the overwhelming bipartisan conclusion of the American lawmakers who will take the diamond for Thursday night's annual Congressional Baseball Game at Nationals Park, especially in the wake of the tragedy that shook Washington on Wednesday morning.

.... That afternoon, leaders of Congress held a tearful private briefing, and when it was announced that the game would go on for the 108th consecutive year as planned, the lawmakers rose in unison and applauded, according to various reports.

"All of us are really shaken by this," Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat from Illinois, told the Chicago Tribune while leaving the meeting. "There was an incredible tone of unity. And all of us need to take the responsibility for the tone and for the fact that we are one in terms of our love for our country and our vulnerability.

"And we need to stand together as Democrats and Republicans."

Tonight, they will do that at the game, which has been played at the ballpark of the hometown Nationals for the past nine years and attracted an estimated crowd of 10,000 last year. This time, in a tribute to Scalise, an alumnus of Louisiana State University, members of both Congressional teams are planning to wear some form of LSU's purple and gold.

The tribute was reportedly organized by Rep. Roger Marshall (Kansas), and LSU athletic director Joe Alleva told NOLA.com that the school has sent hats, towels, shirts and hats to the Congressmen to wear on Thursday. LSU recently qualified for the College World Series and is set to face Florida State on Saturday night.

"Scalise was always decked out head-to-toe in LSU gear," Marshall's spokesman, Eric Pahls, told the Independent Journal Review. "This is time for all of us to show that we stand with him." --- MLB
​

--- Sounds like a worthy idea to me.

​

>> "We're united not as Republicans and Democrats but as United States representatives," Barton said Wednesday. "It will be 'play ball' tomorrow night, 7:05."<<​

--- there it is right there. United we stand. Play ball.

 

[Marion Morrison]

So.. The mystery to me here is ----

This guy buys a rifle. Is reported to the POlice for practicing in the back yard. Says goodbye to the wife, disa-fucking-pears for FIVE WEEKS --- with the rifle. Tells family/friends he's going to D.C to "protest".. And every ONE of them KNOWS he's "radicalized"...

Why is the wife not under interrogation? Nothing strange about taking a brand new rifle to Washing-noguns-town DC for a PROTEST? And is living out of his van?? Her story better be good..

Good point. There has to be more to that.

Do we know she, or others, are not being questioned?

Dunno -- all the "journalists" lack that ability to think for themselves and FIND stories. Too busy making up shit.

Or perhaps their editors passing over such stories in favor of what sells. Emotion after all is what sells --- some nut goes on a shooting rampage = gold mine. When that subsides you re-run endless witness accounts to milk some more. Then you trot in the conspiracy theorists to stir fear and loathing.

The more analytical questions of circumstantial background are not nearly so sexy. They don't sell enough papers. Well we can't have that when there's money to be milked from emotion, so "let's take you to San Francisco because -- yay -- we have another shooting we can milk". Lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

Such are the wages of news-for-profit.

So do tell us again why you aren't out there doing it, getting busy?

Because I have principles, a primary one of which is that truth is far more important than profit.

So, couldn't get hired, huh?

 

[Pogo]

Good point. There has to be more to that.

Do we know she, or others, are not being questioned?

Dunno -- all the "journalists" lack that ability to think for themselves and FIND stories. Too busy making up shit.

Or perhaps their editors passing over such stories in favor of what sells. Emotion after all is what sells --- some nut goes on a shooting rampage = gold mine. When that subsides you re-run endless witness accounts to milk some more. Then you trot in the conspiracy theorists to stir fear and loathing.

The more analytical questions of circumstantial background are not nearly so sexy. They don't sell enough papers. Well we can't have that when there's money to be milked from emotion, so "let's take you to San Francisco because -- yay -- we have another shooting we can milk". Lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

Such are the wages of news-for-profit.

So do tell us again why you aren't out there doing it, getting busy?

Because I have principles, a primary one of which is that truth is far more important than profit.

So, couldn't get hired, huh?

So I never wished to be hired for a dishonest occupation.

As I've often noted in my chosen profession of radio I've done announcing, producing, engineering, operations, management --- everything except "ad sales". Because that's a bullshit occupation.

As I said --- I have principles.

 

[basquebromance]

Mark Sanford (remember Mrs Argentina?) says Trump partially to blame for shooting.

That's just stupid.

 

[basquebromance]

Scalise with his kids

 

[Pogo]

Mark Sanford (remember Mrs Argentina?) says Trump partially to blame for shooting.

That's just stupid.

Actually that's just unlinked.

What the fuck is your problem? You think links are like germs or sump'm? Are you so fucking wrapped up in your own narcissism that you actually believe all you have to do is type something on the internet and it somehow becomes real? Wtf???

 

[basquebromance]

this kind of rhetoric led to the partisan divide...

 

[basquebromance]

Oh no! They're praying before the baseball game. An Atheist in Minnesota is really offended right now

 

[Pogo]

Supposedly the game, just starting now, can be streamed from the Congressional Nosebook Page here, or on "Q13fox.com", and on C-Span. I don't have a Nosebook account, I can't find any such stream on Q13fox.com even though it says there will be one, and I don't have a TV.

But if anyone does have any of that, watch it for me.

 

[basquebromance]

the game is about to start!

Lawmakers sport LSU gear at baseball game to honor Scalise. that's Rand Paul in the middle!

 

[Pogo]

Supposedly the game, just starting now, can be streamed from the Congressional Nosebook Page here, or on "Q13fox.com", and on C-Span. I don't have a Nosebook account, I can't find any such stream on Q13fox.com even though it says there will be one, and I don't have a TV.

But if anyone does have any of that, watch it for me.

I heard back from the TV station and their live-stream link is here.

They just had -- I assume -- an injured Capitol policeman on crutches throw out the first pitch.
I assume because there's no TV announcer so you have to guess what's going on.

Fun trivia -- who's the only Congressional Baseball player to hit a home run in the game?

Spoiler: Answer

Ron Paul

 

[basquebromance]

Mark Sanford (remember Mrs Argentina?) says Trump partially to blame for shooting.

That's just stupid.

Actually that's just unlinked.

What the fuck is your problem? You think links are like germs or sump'm? Are you so fucking wrapped up in your own narcissism that you actually believe all you have to do is type something on the internet and it somehow becomes real? Wtf???

people are too busy to give a link to every statement they make. get a life. why would i make it up. this is the last time i'm gonna take the bait, here's your link.

Mark Sanford: Donald Trump partially to blame for heated rhetoric that led to Alexandria shooting

 

[Pogo]

Mark Sanford (remember Mrs Argentina?) says Trump partially to blame for shooting.

That's just stupid.

Actually that's just unlinked.

What the fuck is your problem? You think links are like germs or sump'm? Are you so fucking wrapped up in your own narcissism that you actually believe all you have to do is type something on the internet and it somehow becomes real? Wtf???

people are too busy to give a link to every statement they make. get a life. why would i make it up. this is the last time i'm gonna take the bait, here's your link.

Mark Sanford: Donald Trump partially to blame for heated rhetoric that led to Alexandria shooting

Should have had that in hand the first time out, jackball. If you don't have a link -- YOU AIN'T READY TO POST. Get it?

 

[Pogo]

Supposedly the game, just starting now, can be streamed from the Congressional Nosebook Page here, or on "Q13fox.com", and on C-Span. I don't have a Nosebook account, I can't find any such stream on Q13fox.com even though it says there will be one, and I don't have a TV.

But if anyone does have any of that, watch it for me.

I heard back from the TV station and their live-stream link is here.

They just had -- I assume -- an injured Capitol policeman on crutches throw out the first pitch.
I assume because there's no TV announcer so you have to guess what's going on.

Fun trivia -- who's the only Congressional Baseball player to hit a home run in the game?

Spoiler: Answer

Ron Paul

The TV stream won't go fullscreen -- here's a much better link from C-Span

Actually much better feed --- multiple camera shots with commentary.

Democrats ahead 3-2