Skip to content

Occupy St. Louis to show a commercial-free World Series

Oct 19, 2011, 8:00 AM EDT

Wall Street Protesters Stage March And Join Union Protest In Manhattan Getty Images

The protests have been one thing, but moving on to the rebroadcast and redistribution of the pictures, accounts and descriptions of these games without the express written consent of Major League Baseball shows that the Occupy Wall Street is about nothing but anarchy!

Occupy St. Louis invited baseball fans on Tuesday to watch the World Series for free on a big screen at its campsite, and said it would stream its message against economic inequality between innings. The group, part of the nationwide Occupy Wall Street movement, said it would show the opening game of the series, which starts on Wednesday at Busch Stadium, at its Kiener Plaza campsite.

“Come watch the game with the 99 percent,” the group’s Facebook posting said. “Show the world that there isn’t a need for corporate sponsors to enjoy baseball.” “We will be projecting the game on our big screen, but without corporate sponsors. Commercials will be replaced with other Occupy groups’ livestream,” it said.

All I’ll say is thank God that it’s Fox and not TBS with the World Series. Because otherwise these people would never know when “The Big Bang Theory” was going to be on!

  1. joshfrancis50 - Oct 19, 2011 at 8:53 AM

    I’m not for or against the Occupy movement, but the statement “there isn’t a need for corporate sponsors to enjoy baseball” seems a bit misguided. Without corporate sponsorship, do any of the games get broadcast? Without corporate sponsorship dollars, can the Cardinals generate enough revenue to re-sign Albert Pujols? Is it unreasonable to think that revenues from corporate sponsorships contributed to the financing needed to overhaul the stadium downtown (I don’t want to name the stadium since that’s exactly what the corporations WANT you to do…)

    They are right, you don’t need corporations to enjoy baseball, but if you want to watch a competitive team from the comfort of your home (or whatever street you are occupying), you ought to thrown them a bone, no?

    • natstowngreg - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:01 AM

      More than a little misguided. And yes, you do need corporations. MLB is a corporation. Each of Its teams is a corporation.

    • trtx84 - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:11 AM

      Not to mention the confusion that stems from a group of people protesting economic inequality being more concerned with the commericial sponsors than two groups of 30 guys or so being paid millions of dollars to play/manage baseball.

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:24 AM

        That’s another major problem I have with this movement. They rail on salaries of CEOs that probably worked pretty damn hard to get where they are, but they’re fine with actors being paid hundreds of millions of dollars so that it costs us $15 for a movie ticket. Nobody seemed to bat an eye when Kanye West showed up to the New York protest wearing a $300 shirt. It’s ok to make an assload of money, as long as you agree with them politically.

      • thefalcon123 - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:36 AM


        The issue isn’t earning money. It’s *how * the money is earned. The problem is earning millions with shady lending practices, or upping your millions by sending jobs to nations with no labor standards were they can be abused and be paid pennies an hour.

        Athletes and actors don’t do this things. They make a lot of money…and what? Kayne West is rich. Good for him. He’s not polluting, thieving and depressing the American economy.

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:03 AM


        Here’s my take on this. Companies are in business to make money, pure and simple. A lot of people think that their main goal should be to serve the community or common good or whatever, but I see nothing wrong in setting out to make money. Do big banks do some things they shouldn’t? Sure. My answer to that is take your business elsewhere. If the consumer would do some basic research on a loan before they sign, they could avoid a lot of these complaints. Did the banks offer loans that didn’t make sense for someone making $25,000/year? Sure, but no one forced anybody to sign on the dotted line. If you can’t work out a simple budget and realize you can’t afford a 6 bedroom house or that new Escalade, I don’t have much sympathy for you.

        Now, about shipping jobs overseas. Let’s say you pay a kid $30 to cut your grass. One day he comes and says he wants $60. Now the kid next door hears that and says he’ll do it for $40, who do you hire? Assuming the quality will be the same, you’d be crazy to pay 150% for the same product. It’s the same with labor to me. Minimum wage has grown faster than discretionary raises, union labor is constantly getting more expensive. If the goal is to make money, why not get the same product for less money? I think a lot of people over value labor in this country, but let’s be honest. It’s much easier to replace a factory worker or a waiter than it is to replace a doctor or someone with intricate knowledge of the financial system.

        I don’t believe that corporations have an obligation to support their community. A lot of people do believe that they should be loyal and all of that, but it would be irresponsible to shareholders. And as for loyalty, let’s reverse it. If a competing company offered you more money to do the same thing you’re currently doing, would you be loyal to your boss for the hell of it or would you take more money?

      • trtx84 - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:31 AM

        “by sending jobs to nations with no labor standards”…

        Who do you think makes all of those jerseys, caps, shirts, shoes, gloves, and other sourvenirs that teams sell to rake in profit?

        “Kayne West is rich. Good for him. He’s not polluting, thieving and depressing the American economy…”

        But every single company that advertises during the World Series is? And again, this isn’t me overstating their cause, it’s the words right out of their own statement. This isn’t about any particular company or companies that they’re standing against, it’s “the corporations” that are sponsoring the game.

        That’s been my problem with Occupy the last few weeks. They’ve gotten progressively further and futher away from their message. It started out about the banks, then it was about lobbyists and campaign financing. Now they’ve literally released a statement about “The corporations”.

        If they don’t want me to misunderstand their motives…maybe they should have some.

      • trtx84 - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM

        It should also be noted that the Player’s Association isn’t entirely innocent in this matter.

        Sure, their talents are what can be used to make billions in advertising and attendence/viewership revenue, but by that same token their ever increasing salaries can quickly outstrip what their teams are able to make from their presence on the roster.

        Let’s take Albert Pujols for example. I’m sure he’d love to stay in St. Louis, but if the Cardinals aren’t able to afford his contract and still put together a competitive product, do you think the Player’s Assocation would like it if he turned down a massive Yankees/Red Sox deal to stay with his current team?

        And it’s not like all players are completely innocent either. If you think “the corporations” are stealing money and cheating the system, how about players that use performance enhancing drugs to inflate their numbers and thus their worth? If a guy like A-Rod was using steroids when he put up the numbers that earned him that massive Yankee contract…that contract will STILL set the tone for any future player able to produce at that level (clean or not) thus his cheating has permanently changed the financial face of the free agent market.

        So if you’re going to take a stand against MLB’s corporate sponsorship, make sure you understand that “America’s Pasttime” isn’t exactly an angel in the middle of all of this.

      • cur68 - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:56 AM

        Come to HBT for the baseball, stay for the great literature, political debate, corporate law, erudition, use of hyperbole in a paragraph not more than 140 characters in length, and the boobz. I swear, there’s more about corporate America from one thread in this website than any other devoted exclusively to the topic.

        IMO: some people need to lighten up and just watch the game (*cough* occupywallstreet *cough*cough*). Use the mute button for the commercials. When corporate America wants to get rid of my mute button THEN I’m gonna get all up in their grill.

      • kiwicricket - Oct 19, 2011 at 12:23 PM

        Just the Boobz, Cur. Just the Boobz.

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 1:56 PM

        Boobz? Where?

      • natstowngreg - Oct 19, 2011 at 2:53 PM

        I’m imagining a Canadian getting up in Corporate America’s grill.

        Thanks, I needed a good laugh, after just hearing how our bureaucracy’s head plans to deal with a significant budget cut.

    • Old Gator - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:53 AM

      I think you’re underinterpreting the point of “without corporations.” I don’t believe these folks think we could do without corporations per se. I think they mean that the extent of corporate “sponsorship” and infiltration of the details of the game – shouting the name of a sponsor every time there’s a home run or strikeout on broadcasts, for example, or giving soulless corporate names to stadiums instead of place names of communities, names of social benefactors and so forth – has gotten stifling and vulgar. In which case, I agree with them wholeheartedly.

      And for what it’s worth, yeah, I think paying ballplayers tens of millions of dollars is ridiculous. Those ticket prices are one of the big reasons why I don’t go to nearly as many games as I used to.

      • kiwicricket - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM

        ‘per se’ is entirely correct Gator.
        As someone who travels through North America only once or twice a year annually, I have noticed over the past 15 years or so things have gotten ridiculous. I still remember seeing an advertisement for some crap movie in a baseball game. I was astounded to be honest. Globally, sports have an increasing angle towards advertisement, but the utter crap which you are bombarded with in the States is crass, obnoxious and off-putting.

        There is a limit for anything, and everything is relative.
        The 4th largest sporting event in the world is occurring in my home country, and there not a fraction of the drivel being pumped into your lounge via corporate sponsors.

      • Jonny 5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM

        I want to puke every time I hear during a Phillies game. “_____” is safe, safe and secure with NY Life. Oh really, he got a hit, and NY Life is behind that somehow??? Hmmm?

      • The Baseball Idiot - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:25 AM

        I completely agree with Old Gator. Is this a sign of the apocalypse?

      • kiwicricket - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:37 AM

        Honestly Jonny, I really can’t put to words just how bizarre and ridiculous some of them are. You really do notice them from an outside prospective. Sad thing is, is that it’s like looking into the future for me. I just know AUS and NZ will end up this way in 10yrs unfortunately.

      • Old Gator - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:38 AM

        According to Harold Camping, yes.

        But then, Harold sees signs of the apocalypse in his tortillas and egg yolks.

      • Jonny 5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 12:23 PM

        Kiwi, And it’s a company with NY in the name!! How aggravating is that?

  2. hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM

    “Show the world that there isn’t a need for corporate sponsors to enjoy baseball.”

    BUSCH Stadium respectfully disagrees.

    In all seriousness though, it’s one thing to vote Democrat and want higher taxes and blah blah blah, but it’s something entirely different to act like nothing but evil comes from the corporate world. I also find it interesting that certain corporations (Starbucks, Target) are generall praised by the Left, while they detest Wal-Mart, even though the business models are almost identical. And let’s not forget all the tweeting and so on this crowd is doing from all of their brand new iphones.

    • Francisco (FC) - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:00 AM

      It’s all about marketing. For years and years Apple has cultivated that under-dog label versus the Evil Microsft. The irony is Apple and their products are far more closed, expensive and propriety than anything else. They make cool gadgets and that seems to forgive a lot. They are the Michael Young of Corporate America.

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:21 AM

        I agree. So much is made of wage rates oversees, especially with companies like Nike getting slammed for what they pay. I’d be interested to see what Starbucks pays their bean pickers in Ethiopia and how it compares to some other companies.

      • Old Gator - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:55 AM

        If I’m not mistaken Apple is one of the biggest purchasers of Microsoft operating software. Such is life. And no Starbucks ever opened up a megacenter three miles outside of a small city and helped destroy the citiy’s economy by driving its small retail businesses out of business.

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:11 AM


        I don’t buy the argument that a big box store kills a small town economy. It delivers a larger variety of goods at lower prices. It employs dozens if not hundreds of people instead of the 5 or 10 people a small local store would employ. I haven’t done the research myself, but I’d be interested to see the change in local GDP after a Wal-Mart opens in a rural community. If you don’t like a store like that personally that’s fine. I love being able to go one place and get milk, a microwave, a sweatshirt and a box of ammo.

      • El Bravo - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:41 AM

        hasbeen5, I’ve done some research for you by growing up in a small town where a Wal-Mart, and then much later a Home Depot, moved into our rural county where I was raised. The Wal-Mart opened in ’99 and it was great for creating a net gain of additional jobs and making everyone’s lives in a 75 mile radius more convenient. That said, it killed mom and pop shops all around that same radius. That’s rough, but that’s also capitalism, so I can’t expect that to change. The Wal-Mart is still there is it’s doing just dandy. Overall it has been a net gain for the area’s economy.

        Here’s the problem: The Home Depot came in about five years ago and killed any business in its realm of competition within months. Now, Home Depot decides to shut it down and has let everyone go. It isn’t as easy as big business vs. small, it has to do with corp. decision-making (HD should have never even opened the damn store within a depressed economy and not enough people in the area to regularly shop there). It also has to do with the state of the economy, as I mentioned, which caused HD to lose business nationwide. It was their poor foresight, and eagerness to swallow up regions with its business, that ended up costing a lot of jobs and small businesses in the long run. In other words, f@ck Home Depot.

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:59 AM

        El Bravo

        Thanks. I’ve seen a couple anecdotal examples around here too. I’m in a larger (for this region) town, but the rural areas on the outside of our “metropolitan” area all have Wal-Marts and are all doing fine. I don’t think the poor management of one large corp. is indicative of all similar stores. We have Lowe’s and Home Depot here, and the Lowe’s is managed so much more professionally. I’ve heard from people in other areas also that HD just seems to cut corners and provide a relatively poor service. I think that’s why they’re struggling more than Lowes.

        People get nostalgic for the mom & pop shops, but the fact is the economy and the supply/demand curve has just changed. It sucks for the small guy, but if he can’t compete he can’t compete. Like you said, Wal-Mart was a net gain for the community. I imagine that’s the case for most of their stores.

        Now on the “if he can’t compete he can’t compete” front, I realize I’m sounding 100% pro corporation/big business here. I want to be clear that I think the bailouts of banks and GM and everybody else were awful. They made their beds and they should have to lie in them. A lot of these companies did stupid stuff, even immoral if not illegal stuff, but I think if the consumer would do some research the problem would be solved by the free market taking business elsewhere rather than through reactionary regulation.

      • El Bravo - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:10 AM

        My bottom line has always been this: corporations, big and small, are NOT people and giving them any rights that are enjoyed by individuals is ridiculous. Corps in a capitalistic society have the incentive, and rightly so, to do one thing, and that’s turn as big a profit as possible. Without regulation, they will do so in any way they can: illegal, immoral, unethical, who cares…

        Without regulation, Commonwealth Edison would f@ck me even worse than they have in the last couple years. I wish we could regulate their customer service a bit. Without proper regulation, GM and AIG and large banks went nuts and greatly contributed to crippling the economy. Some, I think, needed the bailout b/c they were indeed too big to fail. I think economists generally agree with that point and that it was successful. GM was certainly a successful bailout. The point being, none of it would have been an issue in the first place if there were proper oversight.

        Now, back to baseball…hahaha

      • Jonny 5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:23 AM

        Ask Hillary Clinton how it is that when Walmart was forcing companies to overseas manufacturing she was on the board of directors pushing this policy……..

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:43 AM

        I still have a hard time swallowing the “too big to fail” thing too. Fact is they made poor decisions and there should be consequences for that. I agree some regulation is needed, just not necessarily to the point we’re at now. And let’s not overlook the governmental role in some of those idiotic loans either. Banks were encouraged to make loans to people that previously didn’t qualify. We may be opening a whole different issue here, but minorities claimed discrimination when their loan apps were denied. Maybe in some cases that occurred, but I have a hard time believing that a bank would turn down a money maker just to spite a minority. I mean, you can’t have it both ways. Either they’re out to make every dollar possible or they’re racist bastards. I think in most cases those would be mutually exclusive options.

      • trtx84 - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:46 AM

        “…by driving its small retail businesses out of business.”

        You have a lot of local coffee shops in your town then?

      • hackerjay - Oct 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM

        “And no Starbucks ever opened up a megacenter three miles outside of a small city and helped destroy the citiy’s economy by driving its small retail businesses out of business”
        Gator, do you really believe that Starbucks doesn’t put mom and pop places out of business? I see maybe one independent coffee shop for every 10 Starbucks.

      • Old Gator - Oct 19, 2011 at 2:12 PM

        trtx84: Yep, lots. Starbucks can’t really go head-to-head with Cuban cafes because their coffee is pisswater. One of the thriving independent coffeeshops in town, my very favorite, is directly across the street from a furniture store that used to be a Starbucks, but that got shut down year before last when the chain axed hundreds of its underperforming shops. And while it was open, the Luna Star Cafe – the place in question – saw its business increase. it doesn’t even have wireless, bless its heart. Coffee shops often do well despite the presence of a Starbucks droid shop in the vicinity because of personality, personableness, better food and, of course, better coffee.

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM

        Isn’t that an argument for letting the free market take its course? If people really liked mom & pop retail stores better than Wal-Mart, wouldn’t the Wal-Mart fail?

    • - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:38 AM

      That’s what gets me. All these people have nicer phones and computers than I have. Who’s the one feeding the corporations?

      I have more respect for minimalists and true off the gridders (I say true, how can you be off the grid if you have an online presence?) than these clowns.

      And if watching baseball on TV means I have to catch the black-ops commercial a few more times I’ll take that.

      • Old Gator - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:56 AM

        I take it you’ve questioned “all these people” and determined how many of them have “nicer computers” than you do? Hey, you wouldn’t be engaged in any mindless….stereotyping here, wouldja?

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:57 AM

        It is pretty clear which demographic Apple targets. Remeber the “I’m a Mac” and “I’m a PC” commercials? There’s a reason Apple thought those commercials would be effective.

      • - Oct 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM

        Point taken, Now leave me and my phone insecurity alone. We’re going off the grid.

      • trtx84 - Oct 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM

        “Hey, you wouldn’t be engaged in any mindless….stereotyping here, wouldja?”

        No moreso than these protesters blanketing any commericial sponsor of the World Series as “the corporations” they’re protesting against.

  3. Francisco (FC) - Oct 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM

    Phillies fan’s have started their own movement: Occupy First Base.

    • Old Gator - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:58 AM

      Feesh fans have started their own movement. It’s just difficult to define because you can’t tell the speed of a particle and its location at the same time.

      • easports82 - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:04 AM

        Awesome comment thread when the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is brought out.

      • kiwicricket - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:49 AM

        Perhaps he’s building up to another ‘Mandelbrot set’ quote? My particular favorite. Perhaps even ‘Julia’s set’….?

  4. rambodiaz - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:01 AM

    Any movement that allows me to watch the game without seeing Brian Wilson commercials has to have some merit. Amirite?

    Unless Brian’s a spokesman for Occupy, of course.

  5. trtx84 - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:05 AM

    I don’t doubt that at some point this “Occupy” protest had a goal and a purpose, but it seems that as it’s expanded they’ve COMPLETELY lost the plot on this one. I mean seriously, you’ve got a Facebook Group promoting “Down with corporations” while they use Twitter to spread real-time updates from the scene.

    The longer this runs, the more I’m reminded of an older South Park episode in which swarms of college age hippies converged on the town to protest “the corporations”. You know there’s a problem when a movement starts to mirror its parody.

  6. lar @ wezen-ball - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:05 AM

    It’s almost as if they’re asking MLB to come in with their lawyers and shut them down today in order to make a big public show of crying outrage at the greedy corporations…

    But that would never happen, right?

    • trtx84 - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:21 AM

      You’re probably right. Hence why it’d be best for MLB to just let this happen and ignore them. If they try to do anything it’ll turn out like that Citibank “lock-in” a few days ago and will give them more fuel for their fire.

    • kiwicricket - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:59 AM

      Bud is very busy….making decisions on other….stuff…….????

  7. Jonny 5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:23 AM

    If these people had a clue, they’d be protesting the “federal” reserve.

    They set the model for screwing the working class.

    • thefalcon123 - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:37 AM

      Ron Paul:

      The candidate for young liberals who know nothing about politics.

      • Kevin S. - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:10 AM

        Ron Paul isn’t the only person who has issues with the Federal Reserve. Bernanke probably has Milton Friedman rolling over in his grave, and Alan Greenspan wasn’t much better.

      • Jonny 5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:15 AM

        One doesn’t need to follow or support Ron Paul to know all about the Federal Reserve and the control they have over our financial system, which basically equals control of the country itself. The system that Kennedy attempted to take back for the country just prior to his assassination with Executive Order 11110. His VP wasn’t as “crazy” and the bill died with Kennedy.

        To assume a person follows a certain political path because he may know certain things is quite close minded I must say.

        Jonny5, an independent conservative minded person.

      • El Bravo - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:46 AM

        Everyone has seen ‘Short Circuit’ and knows that you, Jonny5, are a robot so stop pretending to be human with all of our beautiful feelings and emotions. You can’t even laugh or cry, you bag of nuts n’ bolts. In fact, I’m not even sure how you can be so fond of pie without taste buds, unless of course, you have the upgraded Android OS installed.

      • Jonny 5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM

        Actually El Bravo. I am a super advanced robot that before his time was programmed with emotions as well as taste receptors (you know them as taste buds). The only difference is I don’t have a stomach so all I can do is taste. Taste and spit, never filling up. Beer pours out of the bottom of my tasting module as fast as i drink it. I have just recently installed a device which recycles fluids and I can taste the same beer over and over again until it’s flat, at which time it reminds me of Budweiser and I crack open a new one after draining myself in a similar way as you humans do. PS. I am directly related to Roy Halladay’s Arm. Don’t tell anyone but I still run MS-DOS. It’s something I must live with.

      • El Bravo - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM

        Your response requires no response other than “nice”.

      • Alex K - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:54 AM

        You and ‘Cepts are related? I have now learned something today!

      • ta192 - Oct 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM

        Ron Paul? Really? Paul is the political process version of an internet troll…he knows he can’t be elected, can’t even win the nomination, so he spouts off a whole load of meaningless gibberish just to elicit a reaction from someone, anyone, and make himself feel important. Just do not understand the fascination with Ron Paul…

  8. Clinton Manitoba - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:37 AM

    I applaud this. Anything to avoid commercials is fine with me. We download our shows to skip commercials, and use Adblock with our browsers.
    I buy what I want to buy.

    • Francisco (FC) - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:47 AM

      I don’t have a problem with Advertising per se, just in-your-face advertising. If I walk into the subway and while I’m waiting for the train or while I’m in the train traveling, I might be inclined to look at some ads, but the point is the ads are there if I want to look at them, not shoved in front of me, interrupting my current activity.

      • Clinton Manitoba - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:07 AM

        I’ve seen campaigns against the fact that they have ads in school bathrooms.
        That’s crossing the line.

        I land in the small percentage of Americans that are just outright against ads and commercials. I have followed and supported for many years. (wore blackspot sneakers for years, and flown the corporate us flag)
        If I do watch live tv, commercials start and the tv is put on mute.

        I understand the (sheepish) reasons for the ads. I just don’t care to (baaah) partake.

      • Francisco (FC) - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:30 AM

        Oh I do the same for TV commercials and the mute button. More often than not the stupid things are five times louder than the programming, it’s incredibly annoying to have to up-and-down the volume, mute is so much easier.

    • El Bravo - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:47 AM

      Adblock? What? Tell me more?

      • Clinton Manitoba - Oct 19, 2011 at 12:11 PM

        in the case your not being sarcastic,
        Extension for Firefox and Chrome that will block nearly all ads from websites. Does a pretty good job of blocking ads that appear at the beginning of videos as well.

      • El Bravo - Oct 19, 2011 at 12:16 PM

        No sarcasm. I thought it may be a magic tool for eliminating Hulu video ads and such. If it gets rid of any ad in any online video, it is a winner. Thanks.

  9. danandcasey - Oct 19, 2011 at 9:48 AM

    Please see Craig’s subsequent post: “Looks like it’s gonna be rather ugly in St. Louis for Game 1 of the World Series. The forecast: temperatures in the upper 40s with a chance of rain and wind. The wind chill will drop things into the 30s.”

    I think more people will be at Hotshots Sports Bar & Grill than Occupy’s Kiener Plaza campsite.

  10. Kevin S. - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:38 AM

    I find something deeply ironic about a movement protesting corporate advertising propaganda by replacing it with their own propaganda.

    • El Bravo - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:48 AM

      Sometimes you gotta fight poop with pee or vice-versa.

      • kiwicricket - Oct 19, 2011 at 12:34 PM

        Depends on what German adult film you are in really.

  11. yankeesfanlen - Oct 19, 2011 at 10:48 AM

    Occupy Wall Street just doesn’t seem to be as much fun as Woodstock.

    • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM

      At least Woodstock had a lake to bathe in. Or river, whatever.

  12. hooks024 - Oct 19, 2011 at 11:43 AM

    When did this become a political blog? or a political blog? You people seem to forget one key question. Do they have expressed written consent of mlb to broadcast the game publicly? If not, then shut these whiny hippies down.

  13. spudchukar - Oct 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM

    A couple of thoughts. For all of you who believe baseball would die without corporations, I remind you that Green Bay seems to be doing okay without the interference of corporate America.

    Second, the primary difficulty with Corporate America is that it destroys free enterprise. Without competition the essence of pure capitalism is denied. The “Occupyers” focus is on greed. Long ago American philosopher Robert Pirsig used his prescient scalpel to cut to through generations of BS. He warned that when profit becomes that prime motivating force, quality becomes a distant memory. When the focus shifts from quality to profit we are bombarded with Corporate Logos, Home Depot employees who do not know a nut from a screw, revolving stadium monikers, Banks that penalize you for using your money, and bean counters are championed for saving a few bucks here and there as the quality of the product suffers.

    Most of us come to this site, for baseball. We just don’t want to see its quality and purity tarnished any more than it has been by greed.

    As Terrance Mann so eloquently put it “the one constant through all these years Ray has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game is part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of what was once good and could be again.

    It is all the “occupyers” are asking

    • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 1:46 PM

      Are Green Bay games televised? If so, they have corporate sponsors. Yankee Stadium is still called Yankee Stadium, doesn’t mean they don’t have sponsors.

      The part of corporate America that hurts the free market is the part that’s in bed with the government. Lobbyists and legislators pick winners and losers by incentivizing certain products through tax codes and not others. If we could get rid of that kind of intervention, when quality declined people would move onto a competitor.

  14. hooks024 - Oct 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM

    Rabble rabble! Corporations making money! Corporations sitting in their corporation buildings acting all corporationy! Take your banter to a political blog if you want to pontificate like a bore. Bring on the baseball, you dimwits!

    • hasbeen5 - Oct 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

      I think I once chastised Gator for turning a baseball post into something political.

      This is an inherently political post. If the debate is over your head, feel free to tune out.

  15. thomaspaine2011 - Oct 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM

    The hypocrisy of this astonishes me. A group that claims to be against the top 1% uses the game broadcast by the money of the 1% in clear violation of their terms that are announced every game.
    They claim to represent 99% of the people but the sure don’t speak for me. Oh, and I’m far from rich.

    Occupy Nothing!/ThomasPaine2011

  16. Reggie's Bush - Oct 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM

    I guess I have a dog in this fight. Let me be clear – I work in a private bank in New York.

    Also, I find this occupy anything ridiculous.

    I hate the blanket that is thrown over everything and now everyone is evil. Many banks received tarp money and got bailed out.
    My bank received money, we didn’t need it but who turns down free money that could be invested and used for capital? We did end up returning the money to the government because the ‘catch’ (or clause for accepting the money) was that the government would regulate our bonuses how they saw fit. Seeing as this was unnecessary and the ego of most Group Directors (we’re made up of small private client groups) here who earn their bonuses independently of each other depending on what type of money they bring in – it was returned.

    Bottom line is, if I gave you $100 for nothing would you not take it? Personally I thought the GM bailouts and the bank bailouts were shitty ideas – but go talk to the government, have them add more regulations and audits. Don’t blame all corporations when it’s clearly not the case.

    I’m sorry I kind of lost my train of thought, and also sorry if it sounds/looks rushed – typing from my iPhone while at work.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. C. Correa (2492)
  2. G. Stanton (2477)
  3. Y. Puig (2459)
  4. B. Crawford (2348)
  5. H. Pence (2221)
  1. G. Springer (2189)
  2. M. Teixeira (2109)
  3. H. Ramirez (2099)
  4. J. Hamilton (2082)
  5. J. Baez (2059)