Shohei Ohtani's Latest Massive Home Run Goes Viral
At some point soon, Los Angeles Dodgers superstar Shohei Ohtani will finally get the Barry Bonds treatment.
For the unfamiliar, the 'Barry Bonds treatment' is simple. Teams would rather walk you than risk you smashing a ball deep into the right-field seats.
Advertisement
The idea may sound ridiculous, at least until you see Ohtani's latest mammoth home run. The three-time MVP crushed a 448-foot leadoff blast Wednesday night, setting the tone for a seven-run first inning.
Ohtani's sixth homer of the season quickly went viral, amassing over one million views on X (formerly Twitter) as of Wednesday morning.
'If it was a day game, or as we get into the summer, that ball's out of the stadium,' manager Dave Roberts said, according to the Dodgers' official website. 'It's going to happen at some point.'
According to MLB Statcast, Ohtani has hit 12 home runs of at least 445 feet dating back to Opening Day 2024.
Advertisement
'I'm starting to listen to people saying this guy is the goat,' an X user wrote. 'If not, it seems he'll be there by the time he hangs it up.'
Added another: 'There will never be another player like him in my lifetime 🦄'
Los Angeles Dodgers designated hitter Shohei OhtaniJayne Kamin-Oncea-Imagn Images
Numerous users questioned Colorado Rockies pitcher Germán Márquez's pitch choice: an 85 mph slider in Ohtani's wheelhouse.
'That ball knew what it did,' quipped one X poster.
It's been business as usual for Ohtani, who enters play Thursday with an NL-high six home runs. The two-way phenom is expected to return to the mound in the coming weeks and make his first start since August 2023, when he still played for the Angels.
Advertisement
'Whether you're are 8 years old or 80 years old, you are seeing a one of a kind baseball player who will be talked about not just decades from now, but 100 years from now!' an X user commented.
Related: Dodgers' $150 Million Star Shares Surprising Admission on 2026 Plans
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Elon and the Genius Trap
Was Elon Musk ever a genius? Yes, he revolutionized the electric-car industry and space travel. Yes, he once seemed to represent America' restored American confidence in its ability to innovate at the cutting edge of technology. But Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, and he doesn't regularly appear in headlines as a prominent tech genius. In fact, many well-informed people probably don't even know his name. So what makes one man merely wildly accomplished and another a genius? And which descriptor makes a man more likely to engage in an ego-crushing battle with the president? In this episode of Radio Atlantic, we talk with Helen Lewis, author of The Genius Myth: A Curious History of a Dangerous Idea. Explaining how Musk tanked his reputation has many ways: First, he alienated environmentalists by teaming up with Trump, and then he alienated Trump fans by insulting their hero. Another way is clear by looking at American culture's historical relationship with 'genius,' and how it tends to go wrong. Genius, it turns out, is less a series of accomplishments than a form of addiction. It traps the men who indulge it, and they often end up, like Musk, depleted. We talk with Lewis about what Musk has in common with Thomas Edison, how the psychedelics fit into the archetype, and what the possible paths are for Musk moving forward. The following is a transcript of the episode: [ Music ] News clip: The bromance is over. President Trump and Elon Musk trading barbs today over Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill.' Hanna Rosin: Well, last week, something no one could have expected to happen finally happened. The president of the United States and the richest man in the world had a spectacular falling out. Rosin: The feud between Trump and Musk escalated at a bewildering pace. Donald Trump: Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if it went well anymore. I was surprised. Rosin: Trump may have been surprised, but to a lot of us watching, a partnership of two egos this huge was doomed to break up. This week, Musk has tried to patch things up, saying he regrets some of what he said, without specifying what exactly. But Trump is more or less not engaging, and it looks like, for the moment at least, Musk's reputation has hit rock bottom. I'm Hanna Rosin. This is Radio Atlantic. Today, we consider the long arc of Elon Musk in the context of other historical figures who, like him, were given the revered title of 'genius.' Not that long ago, Musk was considered a visionary by Americans across the political spectrum, an inventor solving climate change, space exploration, and, really, whatever he set his mind to. But as we all know, the last few years have seen his reputation crater on the left: His support of Trump, his buyout of Twitter, his online presence, loaded with memes and conspiracy theories. Basically, anything to troll the libs, many of whom had been his fans. Now his fallout with the president is making him suspect on the right, leaving him a constituency of no one. So how do we understand the arc of Musk, someone who could have gone down in history as one of the great tech geniuses but, instead, used his reputation to get himself more and more attention and, in the process, seems to have torched that very reputation? As it so happens, staff writer Helen Lewis has a very timely book out next week that helps explain this pattern. It's titled The Genius Myth, and Musk is its quintessential modern example. As Lewis argues, societies build myths of individual geniuses, and often those geniuses overstay their welcome, having second or third acts as they try to be experts in every field or to simply keep the attention they're accustomed to. I asked her to put the week's Musk news into a wider picture, and to explain why she thinks we should avoid the label 'genius' altogether. Here's our conversation. [ Music ] Rosin: Helen, welcome to the show. Helen Lewis: Thank you. Rosin: Sure. So I wanna start before this feud between Trump and Musk, maybe even before Musk bought Twitter. So let's say it's 2020, and this is when Trump publicly calls Musk 'one of our great geniuses' and compares him to Thomas Edison. What is it about Musk that qualifies him for that rarefied public title of genius? Lewis: At the time, I think the assumption was that he had revolutionized not just one but two industries, which is very rare. You know, in driving down the cost of space parts, he undoubtedly challenged, essentially, the kind of government-funded monopoly and the slow way that space exploration was going. You know, there was this humbling period for America, where it couldn't even get its own astronauts up into space. It had to rely on, you know, hitching a ride with the Russians. And he managed to, in that sense, restore a kind of American pride in itself. And then, obviously, you have Tesla and its electric vehicles, and turning electric vehicles away from their previous reputation, which was the Toyota Prius, which is a sort of thing you bought as a kind of hair shirt, right— a hair shirt with wheels on to say, I'm sorry for killing the planet —into the idea that an electric car was something you might have because it was cool and it was a good car. And both of those really did remind me actually of Thomas Edison, because both of them are kind of—the nickname that Edison had was the 'American Prometheus.' They were both about an idea of America as a place that still is at the white-hot edge of technology. You know, a place you can still build things and do things. Rosin: Okay, so Elon has these amazing accomplishments. He restores a certain kind of American confidence in itself. But is a genius just someone who accomplishes great things? Like, in the book, you make a really interesting comparison to Tim Berners-Lee, who's thought of as the actual inventor of the World Wide Web. So why does one get to be a genius, and the other is a man who just does a lot of amazing accomplishments? Lewis: Well, you have to also, I think, be prepared to play the role of the genius in public and inhabit that role. And you know, Tim Berners-Lee has had a lot of acclaim. He's got a knighthood here in Britain. He's an honorary fellow in lots of places. But he doesn't swagger about like he's a kind of special sort of human, a class apart, which is I think what Musk, you know, has accepted for himself—that, you know, and has again, like Thomas Edison done, driven a lot of that mythology himself. You know, Thomas Edison notoriously worked through the nights at the laboratory in Menlo Park with his team. And Elon Musk had a similar mythology, which is all about the fact that, you know, he never sleeps. You know, he would have a sleeping bag on the floor of the factory because he was so dedicated. And, like, he was just relentless, and everybody had to be 'extremely hardcore.' So the argument in the book is that achievements are one thing, but we're also into this idea of a kind of mythology around a person. There's this kind of embrace of specialness. And the line that I give that's the, kind of, classic example of this is, you know, Elon Musk currently has—where are we now? I mean, who knows by the time this comes out how many acknowledged children we have, but I think we're currently at 14, and they're called things like Romulus and X Æ A-12. And, you know, Tim Berners-Lee's kids are called Alice and Ben, right? Rosin: (Laughs.) Lewis: This, to me, is just, like: One of you is just a normal person who happens to have done some cool stuff, and one of you has decided I'm gonna try and, like, optimize everything in my life to be a really great story to sound special. Rosin: Right. So the key ingredient of genius is that you're willing to step into the role or mythology of genius. You're willing to sort of lean into the story about yourself as a public genius. Lewis: Right. And you also become a symbol of something bigger. That's what I mean about—becoming a national symbol is a very obvious version of this. William Shakespeare is not just a brilliant playwright—I think that's unarguable—but he became, over the course of the 17th and 18th centuries, an argument for the English language at a time that Britain was expanding its ambitions abroad. You know, this was the kind of high point of the British empire and, therefore, we needed a playwright to match. And I think you can actually see a similar thing with maybe someone like Chinua Achebe, who becomes a kind of symbol of the nation, or Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie for Nigeria now. You know, she's writing novels that are concerned with the Nigerian experience or the Nigerian American experience, inhabiting that bigger role than just being another writer. Rosin: So when you think of Musk in these terms, like how he has successfully styled himself as this very special category of person—the genius—how did that play into his relationship with Trump? Lewis: Well, if you have two people who are both convinced that they're geniuses, it doesn't usually work well. And actually, maybe this is something that Musk should have known, because the car company he owns—obviously, Tesla—is named after Nikola Tesla. And Nikola Tesla, an absolutely brilliant engineer, walked out of working there. He just couldn't get on with Thomas Edison. The story goes that he had a bet, and he won it, and Edison refused to pay up, which bizarrely has an analog in the story that Sam Harris, the former member of the 'Intellectual Dark Web,' tells about having a bet about COVID deaths with Elon Musk. And Sam Harris won, and Elon failed to pay up. So, you know, I think the trouble is genius is always a story about ego, and I don't think I was alone in predicting that the Trump-Musk relationship would at some point explode, because you have two giant silverback-gorilla egos wrestling for dominance, and that is a tension that simply can't be sustained. Rosin: Right, right. And it is true that Trump called himself a genius. He doesn't call many people geniuses, but he did refer to himself as a genius. In the book, you write about how if we declare someone a genius, we believe they have magical powers to do anything, as opposed to, say, specialized skills to do a few specific things. I was wondering if that contributed to Musk's downfall—this idea (that maybe Trump had also) that he could fix any problem, like inefficiencies in the government, just whatever. You set the genius loose and the genius fixes everything. Lewis: Yeah, DOGE is a story of enormous hubris. I think everyone would agree that the American government, like all governments, has a certain amount of waste and inefficiency built into it. But the idea that you could do what Musk did—which is go in with a small cadre of lieutenants, lock everybody else out, and start deleting things based on simple-keyword searches—and that this would not have any negative or unintended consequences is laughable. And the reason that I think Musk thought that worked is that, to some extent, it had worked, particularly at Twitter—which, in the book Character Limit, his takeover there is chronicled. And he did exactly what would then become the DOGE playbook there: you know, brought in his lieutenants, cut the head count, told everyone that they were lazy and that only super, 'extremely hardcore' people could stay. And, you know, sure enough: Twitter is not what it once was. And I thought his tenure at Twitter would be a disaster, and I think probably in economic terms it has been. But what it did was it bought him the attention of Donald Trump. And that looked like it was a very good bet because he was then in a position to make sure he had extremely preferential access to the government in terms of his contracts. That's now a more questionable outcome, given the falling out between him and Donald Trump. Rosin: It's very interesting how you describe the history of Twitter, given your book, because even though his management of Twitter was not genius-level successful, it does seem to have increased his mythology as a genius. Like, he sort of spread the word and myth about himself via Twitter, even as he was doing, you know, less-than-genius things at the actual company. Lewis: The original title for the book, working title, for a long time was The Selfish Genius, which I liked as a pun and, it turned out, no one else got. But it did go to this idea that you are more likely to be held as a genius if you run a kind of election campaign for it. So, you know, one of my examples would be Isaac Newton, undoubtedly a brilliant mathematician but also extremely keen that he got the credit for calculus rather than his German rival, Gottfried Leibniz. You know, these things don't necessarily happen by accident. Often, the genius themselves or their fans, you know, run a kind of publicity campaign for this idea of them as a genius. Rosin: Right. Part of being 'the genius,' like, with quotes around it, is being your own PR around the genius. Like, you just have to be good at that. Lewis: Yeah. Or you have to go and sit in obscurity and kind of let other people create the mythology for you. Rosin: Right. And I guess Musk does both. I mean, he's able to rally an army of fans, stans, and to also do his own PR. Lewis: And there's a phrase that Manvir Singh, the anthropologist, uses about shamans in traditional society, which is that they cultivate an air of 'charismatic otherness.' And I think that also very helpfully describes what geniuses do, or the people around geniuses do. I can't remember who it was who said that every Silicon Valley startup essentially functions like a cult. You know, there's this mission, and there's this one guy at the top of it who's leading everybody on the mission. And I think probably, in the case of Musk's earlier businesses, when he was trying to, essentially, solve climate change and solve space exploration, people did want to join the Elon cult. It's just when the mission is Let's turn Twitter into a more effective vehicle for racism and videos of people losing their shit on street corners, who wants to join that mission? Who wants to, you know, sacrifice their weekends to believe in that? Rosin: Well, this is such an interesting moment because as the breakup is happening—and we're in the middle of it, so we don't know where it will land and what will happen to Musk's reputation, but—the language and the reputation is shifting in real time. So Trump has now reportedly referred to Musk as part genius, part child—he adds the word child —but also crazy. And I'm just wondering if there's some moment where, you know, it's the one drop in the milk that curdles the milk—like, some line where what people used to perceive as eccentricities of the so-called genius suddenly seem like, you know, real negatives, not fake, charismatic negatives, but actual negatives—and if you've been tracing that line. Lewis: The danger for Elon Musk now is that, having alienated basically anyone on the broad left of politics, you know, his original constituency—back when he was a Democratic donor and he was talking about electric vehicles as necessary for combating climate change—they're all gone. He's now alienating anybody on the right who is loyal to Trump, which is, on the surface, everybody. You know, who knows how they feel in the secrets of their hearts, but ostensibly the Republican Party is the Trump party, so he doesn't really have a kind of caucus who want to advance him as an argument. This is what I mean in the book, about genius being an argument for something. Calling someone a genius is often a way of making an argument. And the argument that Elon Musk, as lionizing him, was making, is the idea of: Government is slow and sclerotic and holds back innovation. You know, You need to let Tesla do its thing. You need to let SpaceX do its thing. That's the only way we get to the future. And of course, that's a partial story. Tesla makes a lot of money by trading carbon credits to other car companies. It makes a lot of money from government subsidies from electric cars. You know, these stories are very rarely as rugged and 'Randian' as they appear on the surface. But, you know, Elon Musk was used as an argument for the singular innovative genius, and that's a right-wing argument predominantly in America as it currently stands. But having lost the left, he's now just quite spectacularly lost the right, and you look at his approval ratings, and they are in the Mariana Trench—I mean, just could not be lower. Rosin: When we're back, I ask Helen what happens when a reputation craters like Musk's has, and what the myth of genius can leave out of the story. That's when we're back. [Break] Rosin: And so that's what we are witnessing in real time now with Elon Musk, the kind of deconstruction of whatever mythology he had built around himself, and we just still don't know how it will play out. So once he no longer effectively represents that argument, maybe the sort of glow fades like he's not a genius anymore, because genius needs a purpose—like, a political or social purpose, the label 'genius.' And when he's not doing it effectively, Trump is less interested. Lewis: Well, yeah. I mean, that's the point, isn't it? Musk is no longer as useful to Trump. Not least, I think the biggest thing that he did that was a mistake was to give his interview to Mishal Husain of Bloomberg and say, I'm not going to give any more money in the midterm s, at which point, your reason for stifling your doubts about why this guy is toting his kid around and, you know, jumping in the air, and doing mad posts, and all that stuff is just taken away, right? There was a lot of Shut up and, like, We need his money. And as soon as you say, I'm cutting off the money, then people are free to air the opinions that they've clearly always held in the background anyway. Rosin: Right. Like, the news about Musk's drug use, which had been bubbling up but is now pretty voluminous—although, we should say that Musk recently said he's not taking drugs and simply tried prescription ketamine a few years ago. That said, I could imagine a world where, previously, people would look at his reported psychedelic use and kind of excuse that as the habits of an eccentric genius. And now they look at it more—now that the 'genius' label is fading—as more just genuinely dysfunctional. Lewis: Yes. I mean, you are right to mention, you know, the drug use, because it's interesting that, again, genius is a sort of connection with the divine in a secular society. It's a promise of something superhuman. And so it's not surprising, to me, that you see lots of these tech guys talking about going to Burning Man, talking about doing ayahuasca, talking about altered states of consciousness—because that, again, positions them as modern shamans. You know, they're in connection with something that is outside of the experience of ordinary mortals. I have this line in the book that genius transmutes oddness into specialness. And I think what happens is a lot of reverse engineering, where somebody gets anointed a genius, and then their whole biography is kind of combed through for things that confirm the theory. So it can be, you know, Oh, look at his childhood. In the case of Elon Musk, the things we hear about his childhood was that he would have these reveries, where he would drift off, and that he was badly bullied. And those are, funnily enough, the same things that you hear about Thomas Edison's childhood. He was deaf and seemed to be spending a lot of time in the world of his own. Now, that's true of lots of children, most of whom don't go on to greater achievements. But because you've put this label on someone, we look back and read everything through that prism. Rosin: Right. Okay. So what does the template leave out then? Like, in the case of Elon, you know, there's a template. It leads to your rise in success. What parts are not told? What people get left out of a story like this? Lewis: I mean, all the support staff, really, and all the people who kind of grease the wheels for the great man get slowly downgraded—you know, all the collaborators. You know, I still regularly catch myself and copy wanting to write 'Elon Musk, founder of Tesla.' And, of course, he wasn't, right? It was founded by two other guys, and he took it over. I mean, he was an early investor, but he got the title co-founder as part of a legal settlement. You know, and the fact that X—you know, he was forced out of PayPal by Peter Thiel and the board. You know, he had failures along the way too. All of that stuff kind of gets hastily kind of airbrushed away. Like, I always think of it a bit kind of like a scaffolding around the kind of statue of David, right? And we knock away the scaffolding, and then we just got the perfect statue. And that's the way that we tend to look at geniuses. You know, all of that kind of stuff. And, you know, I have a chapter in the book, obviously, about wives. You know, having somebody who is both your kind of domestic partner and somebody who is maybe a muse or maybe your kind of collaborator, but happy to take a secondary role, that's a huge, huge advantage to you. And also, material conditions: You know, why did Elon Musk move from South Africa to America? Because he wanted to study at the best university, where people were doing the most interesting stuff. He wanted to get funding from venture capitalists who are based in Silicon Valley. You know, Elon Musk could not have been Elon Musk in Pretoria. If he'd stayed there, he might have been a very successful businessman, but he wouldn't be who he is today. So this is what I find deeply irritating about the people who think that, you know, it's all them and they're this unique success story. Elon Musk's success story, credit to him—he has a great deal to do with it. But it is also a story of universities, of American culture, of American wealth, of everything that [Silicon] Valley built up over the course of more than half a century. There are a lot of other bit-part players in the story who shouldn't be, you know, downgraded so we can focus only on the protagonist. Rosin: You know, I deeply appreciated your chapter about wives because one fact that always breaks my brain is how, across the decades and even up until now, we so closely associate the term genius with men. And you created a very simple formula, which is that a genius needs a wife, and it's much less often that a woman has a wife. And so, you know, that's part of the mythology. Lewis: Yeah, I mean, Gertrude Stein had Alice B. Toklas, and that worked out pretty well for her. But it's been throughout history, yes, I think straight women have particularly suffered. I remembered this from writing Difficult Women, my previous book, which was about feminism. I had a chapter on the suffrage movement in the U.K., and there was a quote from the suffragette Hannah Mitchell that said, No cause was won between dinner and tea —which, to translate that into American meals, that's actually lunch and dinner. But her point was that if you had domestic responsibilities, your thinking time was disrupted, and actually not just, you know, in sheer volume of hours, but just in the amount of your kind of brain space you could dedicate to having big thoughts. And it's really interesting that so many—you know, look at the MacArthur genius grants now. They are about taking away money worries and domestic concerns, in order that people can excel to their fullest potential. We all acknowledge that it's really, really hard to manage that kind of big, demanding career as well as being a primary caregiver. In fact, it's pretty much impossible. I mean, Marie Curie managed it, just about, but very few people do. Rosin: Yeah. Yeah. Now, Elon's interest in propagating little Elons—in your book, you describe a long history of geniuses being very interested in the continued propagation of geniuses as a special class. How does he fit into that history? Lewis: Well, it's the propagation of people like themselves, really. I think that's the thing. Rosin: But isn't it also this idea that you can propagate yourself? I mean, it's almost like trying to sort of take this idea of the genius and reduce it to some kind of perfect science? Like, you can just replicate it or clone it. Lewis: Yeah, it's hardcore belief in the power of hereditary genius, which that's the title of the book, the 19th-century book, by Francis Galton, the eugenicist, Hereditary Genius, in which he attempted to categorize all of Britain into different classes, which he all gave a different letter to and worked out how many people fitted in each one. Which, you know, to me, now that obviously sounds like a sort of deranged plan, but this was at a time when people were obsessed with classification and, also, because of the recent discovery of evolution by natural selection, a real interest in breeding and its effect on animals and, therefore, humans. And from that, as you say, you do get this horrific legacy of eugenics, as practiced by both the Nazis and in lots of America, including California. But it persists in these soft forms about people wanting to have smart kids. Now, that's something that everybody would like to do at a kind of basic level. But there is this often-recurrent belief among supersmart people that their children will be supersmart. And actually, statistically, the issue with that is that there is a very common phenomenon known as 'reversion to the mean,' which means that, you know, if you are very smart, you are an outlier—you've probably got the kind of best version of all of the genes that influence intelligence—and that your children are not likely to be outstanding to the exact level that you are and the exact way that you are. So it's, to some extent, you know, a delusion, but it's a very recurrent one. And the story of the genius sperm bank, which there's a book by David Plotz about it, which I highly recommend to people. Essentially, an eccentric millionaire called Robert K. Graham, who made his money inventing shatterproof plastic lenses for spectacles, decides that he's going to go and collect the sperm of a load of Nobel Prize winners, in order to kind of breed a sort of, you know, better, superior race of Americans because America was getting very degenerate. I mean, this is the bit that is always—the side adjunct to it is: Why do we need these geniuses? And the answer usually comes back, Modern culture is degraded. Everybody's lazy. Everybody's degenerate. Often that comes with racial overtones. You know, it's no longer pure (read: white European). And you know, so he said that he got three Nobel winners to donate, including William Shockley, who won the Nobel Prize for the invention of the transistor, and then embarked on an enthusiastic second career as a scientific racist and eugenicist. And I think, you know, Shockley is an interesting template for a kind of proto-Elon Musk in the 20th century, in that he had an undoubtedly distinguished first half of his career, and then the second half of his career was spent saying increasingly radical things to enormous pushback, which he then presented as him being whatever the 1970s word for 'canceled' was. You know, as if the reaction itself proved that he was doing something right. And also, in both cases, about a feeling that maybe the creative juice of the career had run dry but, you know, the attention tap needed to stay on. And that's something that I think you see with lots of people who talk about this kind of breeding of geniuses, is that they know that they're putting their hand on, you know, a hob that is still hot. They know people react enormously strongly to these discussions about race and intelligence, and, therefore, they can't stop themselves from dabbling in it. Rosin: Right. Okay. So that's where we are now with Musk. Now he's a little bit of a different case study than some of the historical geniuses you write about, because he's alternately a genius and a juvenile idiot. Like, he attracts genius sycophants as much as genius debunkers. What does that mean? Like, none of these other geniuses existed in the age of social media, where you had so much controversy around someone. Do you think that points to a different path for him? Lewis: He's certainly a much more unfiltered genius than you've got in the past, but there are precursors to that. One of the reasons Thomas Edison is so famous is that he was operating in Menlo Park in New Jersey, which was a short train ride away from New York, which meant that if you were an enterprising young reporter on a big New York paper, you could get on a very easy train and be there in a couple of hours and stroll into his laboratory—where he would spin you a yarn about the latest thing that he was creating—and go home, write it up, and everybody would be, you know, excited. Being Thomas Edison correspondent was a good gig. And so you did get a lot of him being publicized by a whole cadre of people whose careers came to depend on him. And as you say, in his later career, after his great success helping the electricity grid be put into New York, he did really run dry. He did some very badly received experiments with ore mining. By that point, he'd moved out of the kind of useful phase of his career into the kind of oracle phase. And people would come, and he would, you know, talk to them about intelligence and the spirit world and his plans for world peace. And that is the phase—I think you're right—that Elon Musk is currently in. The only difficulty is that he doesn't have that filtered through a load of newspaper reporters in whose interest it is to present him in the best and most interesting possible light, you know, to perpetuate the myth of this kind of savant. What we have, instead, is him posting pictures of himself, like AI-generated images of him as Kekius Maximus, the gladiator, which makes it slightly harder to maintain the kind of genius mystique that you might hope for in those situations. Rosin: Right, right, right. Yeah. I think the phrase you used about Edison was coasting on the fumes of his own publicity, and it made me see very vividly the possible future paths for Musk. Like, you can see a future where he just goes on and fixes Tesla and, you know, does some useful things for space exploration, as you mentioned. But there's this other path, where he's just increasingly a meme—like, increasingly ridiculous. Lewis: He's at a crossroads right now. And, you know, Joe Rogan, the podcaster, who is a personal friend of his, said on his show last week, I think Elon needs to put the phone down. And I think at that point, when, you know, your extremely anti-woke friend who says—you know, I watched Joe Rogan do standup for the piece I wrote for The Atlantic last year, and he said, you know, Elon's so intelligent. He makes me feel like a man and his dog when I talk to him —if that friend is the one saying to you probably time to put the phone down, you have to hope that he would listen. But I don't know if he will. But that is the great paradox of Elon Musk—is that, you know, he has two futures ahead of him: One, beloved sage who got us to Mars; one, vile shitposter who burned away a promising reputation while still maintaining a huge amount of money. You know, this might be a sort of delightful bump on the road in the Musk story. You know, this might be the sort of Rocky -style montage, where he was at his worst low, and from that he rebuilt. Because these are stories and they're, therefore, you know, flexible. And, you know, then they could be rewritten. But you can almost feel everything bending towards the shape that the story wants to be. That's how I felt when I was writing this, is that we have these templates and the facts end up being nudged towards them, and people end up acting in ways that do that actively too. Rosin: Right. Let's move into an alternate universe, which is something that Musk likes to do, where Elon is not subject to the genius myth. How should we think of a person like Musk? Would you be just evaluating accomplishments? Like, would you say something a person did is genius, but you would not step into the trap of calling a person a genius, because that triggers so much else mythology—but it would be reasonable to say, Oh, this company or this decision that a person made was a genius decision? Like, would that be a better way to use that term? Lewis: That's, ultimately, how I see it. It's better to talk about moments of inspiration, of fingertip touches with a divine, if you want to see it like that. You know, I don't want to be a killjoy who crushes people's appreciation of— you know, I write in the book about looking at the paintings of Van Gogh, which I just absolutely love, and you know, the fact that he melded together impressionism and Japanese woodblock prints in this completely new synthesis. And the paintings, you can just feel the emotion pouring out of them and the brush work is so distinctive. I just—you know, I love them, and I'm bowled over by them. And I don't want to cheapen that by being, you know, grubby about it and saying, It's just a painting. My 5-year-old could have done that. No one's better than anyone else. No, I do think that those paintings are some of the best expressions of genius, in the sense of being kind of unfathomable. But I do think that the mythology itself is essentially marketing, you know, in the case of Van Gogh, very much created by his sister-in-law. So his posthumous reputation is bolstered by the idea of him as the tortured genius. And I think you're exactly right. In the case of Musk, it would be more interesting to read an appraisal of Tesla as a company or SpaceX as a company, and just take him out of the equation entirely, because I think that he's there looming over it and maybe, really, clouding people's judgment about those companies. Tesla is, you know, is paying him vast amounts of money, to the extent that it is currently in court about how much they want to pay him, because they believe that having a genius at the helm is so vital to what they're doing. And that may be profoundly distorting the reality of Tesla's market position. So yeah, I think it would be a healthier story to just try and put aside the mythology and see what's actually happening. Rosin: Right. Well, that is so helpful, Helen. Thank you so much for helping us understand this moment through the lens of genius. And congratulations on your book. Lewis: Thank you. [ Music ] Rosin: This episode of Radio Atlantic was produced by Kevin Townsend. It was edited by Claudine Ebeid. We had engineering support from Rob Smierciak and fact-checking by Michelle Ciarrocca. Claudine Ebeid is the executive producer of Atlantic Audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Dodgers Dugout: Who is the best Dodgers catcher ever, Roy Campanella or Mike Piazza?
Hi, and welcome to another edition of Dodgers Dugout. My name is Houston Mitchell. Good news: Shohei Ohtani could be back on the mound before the All-Star break. More on that in Friday's edition. We are going to break the 'Top 10' series into its own edition of the newsletter each week to keep the newsletters from being too long. Sort of like turning 'War and Peace' into two editions: 'War' and 'Peace.' Here are my picks for the top 10 catchers in Dodgers history, followed by how all of you voted. Numbers listed are with the Dodgers only. Click on the player's name to be taken to the Baseball Reference page with all their stats. 1. Roy Campanella (1948-57, .276/.360/.500, 123 OPS+, 3 MVP awards, 8-time All Star) One of the greatest catchers of all time, Roy Campanella (he did not have a middle name) was born Nov. 19, 1921, in Philadelphia. He loved baseball as a kid and grew up a Phillies fan. They once offered him an invitation to try out but rescinded it when they found out he was Black. Campanella played in the Negro Leagues after high school, and in October 1945 he was the catcher for an all-star team that played five games against a team of major leaguers at Ebbets Field, home of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Dodger manager Chuck Dressen led the major leaguers and was impressed by Campanella. He touted him to Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey, who arranged a meeting. Rickey offered Campanella a contract, but he said no because he mistakenly thought Rickey was offering him a contract with the Brooklyn Brown Dodgers, a Negro Leagues team Rickey was rumored to be starting. The next week, Campanella and Jackie Robinson happened to be staying at the same hotel. Robinson told Campanella he had signed with the Brooklyn Dodgers. It was then that Campanella realized what Rickey was offering. He sent Rickey a telegram asking if he could sign with the team. Campanella played for the Dodgers from 1948 until his career was cut short after the 1957 season. In that time, all he did was win three NL MVP awards, make eight All-Star teams, hit 242 homers, have a .500 slugging percentage and play Gold Glove-worthy defense behind the plate. The Dodgers moved from Brooklyn to Los Angeles after the 1957 season, and Campanella was all set to be the team's starting catcher in Los Angeles. But on Jan. 28, 1958, while driving in New York, Campanella's car hit a patch of ice, ran into a telephone pole and overturned. Campanella broke his neck and was paralyzed. He eventually regained use of his arms but used a wheelchair for the rest of his life before dying of a heart attack on June 26, 1993. 2. Mike Piazza (1992-98, .331/.394/.572, 160 OPS+, 1993 Rookie of the Year, 5-time All Star) The Dodgers chose Piazza in the 62nd round of the 1988 draft, the 1,390th player picked overall. No one picked that low has had a career like Piazza's, but it's a bittersweet one for Dodgers fans. Piazza made his major league debut near the end of the 1992 season and won Rookie of the Year in 1993 after hitting .318 with 35 home runs and 112 RBIs. Amazingly enough, Piazza played only five full seasons with the Dodgers, but what seasons they were. After his 1993 season, he hit .319, .346, .336 and .362 and finished in the top 10 in MVP voting in each of those seasons. His best season was his final full season, 1997, when he hit .362 with 40 homers and 124 RBIs. Piazza's contract was scheduled to run out after the 1998 season, and he was due a large increase in salary. Negotiations turned ugly, and the Dodgers, then owned by Fox, wanted to make a statement. So, on May 15, 1998, they traded the best-hitting catcher in history to the Florida Marlins, along with Todd Zeile, for Gary Sheffield, Charles Johnson, Bobby Bonilla, Jim Eisenreich and Manuel Barrios. 3. Mike Scioscia (1980-92, .259/.344/.356, 99 OPS+, 2-time All Star) Scioscia was with the Dodgers for 13 seasons; he never won a Gold Glove, never led the league in any offensive category and made only two All-Star teams. But what he did can't be understated: He gave you above-average play almost every season for 13 seasons. You never had to worry about the position when Scioscia was there, and he hit one of the most important home runs in Dodgers history when he connected off Dwight Gooden in Game 4 of the 1988 NLCS. Scioscia is the only person in major league history who played at least 10 seasons with only one team and then managed at least 10 seasons with a different team. Tommy Lasorda and Vin Scully each said that Scioscia was the best plate blocker he had ever seen, high praise considering they also saw Steve Yeager, another excellent plate blocker. Most Dodger fans remember when Jack Clark leveled Scioscia while trying to score. Scioscia was knocked unconscious but held onto the ball. You can watch a compilation of Scioscia blocking the plate, including the Clark collision, by clicking here. 4. Will Smith (2019-current, .263/.356/.474, 127 OPS+, 2-time All Star) The book is still being written about Smith, who may very well move to the top of this list when his career is through. I've written a lot about Smith over the years, so let's go with 10 little-known facts instead. —His full name is William Dills Smith. —As a senior in high school (Kentucky Country Day School), he pitched and went 7-1 with an 0.87 ERA. He went undrafted and went to Louisville. —He played for Rancho Cucamonga in 2017 and was named to the California League All-Star team. —His first major league homer was a walk-off home run against the Phillies. —He backed up Austin Barnes before becoming the Dodgers' starting catcher on July 26, 2019. —He is one of four catchers to hit 100 home runs with the Dodgers, along with Campanella, Piazza and Steve Yeager. —Smith is one of three catchers to hit home runs in four consecutive at bats (spread over two days), along with Johnny Bench and Benito Santiago. —His favorite player growing up was David Ortiz. —One of only three catchers to steal a base in an All-Star game, joining Iván Rodríguez and Tony Peña. —Hit only .243 in four minor-league seasons, which shows you can't always judge everything by just stats. 5. Steve Yeager (1972-85, .228/.299/.358, 84 OPS+) Yeager was one of the best defensive catchers in history but had the misfortune of being a direct contemporary of the best defensive catcher in history, Johnny Bench. Otherwise, Yeager would have multiple Gold Gloves. His best season offensively was 1977, when he .256 with 21 doubles and 16 homers. Dodger fans remember how he blocked the plate, becoming an almost impenetrable wall whenever a runner tried to score and Yeager had the ball. He also had a powerful throwing arm. Hall of Famer Lou Brock said that Yeager was the toughest catcher to steal against. In 1976, Yeager was in the on-deck circle with Bill Russell at the plate. Russell's bat shattered as he hit a ground ball and a jagged piece of the bat stabbed Yeager in the throat, piercing his esophagus and narrowly missing his carotid artery. While he was recovering, Yeager and Dodgers trainer Bill Buhler designed a device that hung from the catcher's mask, protecting his throat. For years, most catchers wore a mask that had this device, which Yeager and Buhler patented. Yeager served as technical advisor for the first three 'Major League' movies and appeared in them as third-base coach Duke Temple. 6. John Roseboro (1957-67, .249/.326/.371, 95 OPS+, 2 Gold Gloves, 5-time All Star) Roseboro was the starting catcher on three World Series title teams, and when people mention the great Dodgers pitching staffs of the 1960s, they seldom mention who was catcher for all those great pitchers. It was mainly Roseboro. Roseboro became a catcher when he tried out for his high school team. No one tried out as a catcher, so he volunteered. He wanted to be a football player at Ohio's Central State College, not a baseball player. He became ineligible for football because of poor grades and was working out with the baseball team one day when Dodgers scout Hugh Alexander saw him. Alexander was searching for a left-handed hitting catcher and Roseboro fit the bill. He invited Roseboro to try out with the Dodgers. Five years later, in 1957, Roseboro had moved steadily through the minor-league system as a catcher when he got the call to report to Brooklyn. Only, not as a catcher. They wanted him to play first base because Gil Hodges was injured. So Roseboro's first games as a Dodger were at first base. In the offseason, the Dodgers moved to L.A., and Campanella had the car wreck that ended his career. The Dodgers had three catchers: Roseboro, Rube Walker and Joe Pignatano. Walker was past his prime and retired after starting the season five for 44. Manager Walter Alston named Roseboro, 20, the Dodgers' new starting catcher. Roseboro was the starting catcher through the 1967 season. He was involved in a legendary fight with Juan Marichal, but his career was so much more than that, even though that seems to be what he is remembered for today. Which is a shame. The Dodgers won titles in 1959, 1963 and 1965 with Roseboro in the lineup, and he is a big reason why they won. Roseboro died of a stroke on Aug. 16, 2002. He was 69. One of the speakers at his funeral: Juan Marichal. You could easily move Roseboro to third on this list. Once you get past the top two, the choices could go a lot of different ways, depending on what you view as most important about each player. 7. Babe Phelps (1935-41, .315/.368/.477, 125 OPS+, 3-time All Star) Perhaps the second-best-hitting catcher in Dodgers history, Ernest Gordon Phelps was born April 19, 1908, in Odenton, Md. As most kids did back then, he played baseball every chance he got. The Washington Senators signed him in 1929. He was then a first baseman and outfielder, but was mainly a professional hitter. The Senators brought him to the majors briefly in 1931 and he was such a strong hitter and built like Babe Ruth that his teammates nicknamed him Babe. But, while Ruth was a good fielder, Phelps was not, and the Senators traded him to the Chicago Cubs, who decided to convert him to catcher. It was a strange move, because the Cubs had a great catcher in Gabby Hartnett. After two seasons as Hartnett's backup, his contract was sold to Brooklyn, where he became the backup to Al Lopez. Phelps hit .364 in 47 games, so the Dodgers traded Lopez after the season and named Phelps the starting catcher. He hit .367 in 1936, finishing second to Paul Waner for the batting title. His .367 average is still the highest for a catcher who qualified for the batting title. Phelps remained a strong hitter throughout his Dodgers career, but he put on weight every season too, getting so out of shape that his teammates nicknamed him Blimp. His offense didn't suffer, but his defense did, and he became relatively immobile. He was considered one of the nicest guys in the league and was a fan favorite. Before the 1940 season, the Dodgers made a change that eventually ended Phelps' career: they started traveling by plane, and Phelps was terrified of flying. He made one flight with the team, and then refused to go on another flight, traveling by train throughout the season while the rest of the team flew. The Dodgers acquired Mickey Owen before the 1941 season, and held part of their spring training in Cuba. Phelps refused to fly to Cuba, so the team worked out without him. Owen was named the starting catcher. Then, on June 12, 1941, the team was going to travel ... by train ... to Pittsburgh. Phelps never showed up. Eventually reached by telephone, he said the stress of travel was too much and he was having heart palpitations. He had claimed this before and the Dodgers' team doctor examined him and said he was fine. Thinking he was faking it or a hypochondriac, manager Leo Durocher demanded that Phelps be traded. Finding no takers, the Dodgers suspended him. A couple of months later, the team was in a pennant race and wanted a left-handed bat on the bench. The Dodgers wanted to bring Phelps back, but because of suspension rules at the time, they couldn't without Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis' permission. Landis met with Phelps and refused to reinstate him. The Dodgers lost in the World Series. He was traded to the Pittsburgh Pirates after the season. In 1950, Dodgers fans voted Phelps as the catcher for the all-time Dodgers team, a testament to his popularity. He died in 1992 in Odenton, Md. 8. Russell Martin (2006-10, 2019, .268/.362/.391, 99 OPS+, 1 Gold Glove, 2-time All Star) Martin was a rare catcher who was fast enough to steal bases, including a career-high 21 with the Dodgers in 2007. He was with the team for five seasons, but was hurt for the latter part of the 2010 season and the team let him go as a free agent. They replaced him with Rod Barajas, while Martin signed with the Yankees and put together several solid seasons after that. He returned to L.A. for his final season in the majors, and hit .220 in 83 games, sharing catching duties with Austin Barnes and then-rookie Will Smith. He played in one of the five postseason games against Washington that season, going two for four with a double and a homer. He became a fan favorite in 2019 for pitching four scoreless innings during the season, giving up only two hits and striking out two while throwing a low-80s fastball. Whenever the Dodgers' bullpen had problems that season (see, this season is nothing new), fans would often call for Martin to pitch. He is one of 12 catchers since 1901 to steal at least 100 bases, and his 67 steals is the most by a catcher in Dodgers history. 9. Mickey Owen (1941-45, .258/.319/.315, 80 OPS+, 4-time All Star) Much like Roseboro, Owen is remembered for something (that passed ball in the 1941 World Series) that has overshadowed a solid career. He was a four-time All-Star and during that 1941 season had set a then-record for most consecutive errorless chances handled by a catcher (508). He is also the first player to hit a pinch-hit homer in the All-Star game, which he did in 1942. Arnold Owen (no middle name) was born April 4, 1916, in Nixa, Mo. (By the way, isn't baseball amazing? Here we are, 109 years after a player was born, talking about his career). Owen signed with the St. Louis Cardinals in 1935 and quickly became known for his defense. He was quickly promoted to the majors, and played 80 games with the Cardinals in 1937. After four seasons of solid defense but subpar hitting, the Cardinals traded him to Brooklyn before the 1941 season for catcher Gus Mancuso and $60,000. Owen was called Mickey because of his resemblance to the great catcher Mickey Cochrane. However, when he came to the Dodgers, manager Leo Durocher refused to call him that, referring to him as Arnold. Owen was considered the best defensive catcher in the NL, and if the Gold Glove had been around, probably would have won at least five. He was drafted into the Navy midway through the 1945 season and while he was in the Navy on April 1, 1946, Jorge Pasquel of the Mexican League announced that he signed Owen to a five-year deal as a player-manager for the Veracruz Blues. Commissioner Happy Chandler announced that any player who jumped would be banned for five years if they tried to return. Owen did not like playing in Mexico and, in 1947, petitioned to return to the majors. Chandler denied the appeal. He eventually dropped the suspensions before the 1949 season. The Dodgers released Owen and he signed with the Cubs. Owen retired after the 1954 season and started a baseball camp for kids in Missouri. He ran the camp until 1985, and the camp remained active until 2005. You would often see ads for it in the Sporting News, nestled among the baseball box scores. Owen died in Mt. Vernon, Mo., of complications from Alzheimer's Disease. He was 89. 10. Joe Ferguson (1970-76, 1978-81, .245/.359/.419, 119 OPS+) The Dodgers had two good, young catchers in the early 1970s, Ferguson and Yeager. They eventually decided to go with Yeager because of his superior defense, but Ferguson was a much better hitter. He also played in the outfield quite a bit for L.A. and his most famous Dodger moment probably came as an outfielder, when he cut in front of Jim Wynn to catch a fly ball and throw out Sal Bando trying to score in the 1974 World Series. You can watch that play by clicking here. Watch how far Ferguson had to run to get to the ball, and watch how well Yeager blocked the plate. Ferguson's other great moment as a Dodger came in 1980. The Dodgers were three games behind the Houston Astros with three to play ... all against the Astros. In the first game, the Dodgers and Astros were tied 2-2 going into the bottom of the 10th. Houston's Ken Forsch went to the mound for his 10th inning of work. On Forsch's first pitch, Ferguson homered to left to give the Dodgers the walk-off win. 'I go up in that situation and I'm looking to hit at least a double,' Ferguson said, 'I've got to drive the ball. It wasn't that Forsch was losing command of his pitches. It was just that he didn't have that little extra. He knows what I can do, because I've done it against him before.' You can watch that home run here. By the way, the winning pitcher in that game: Fernando Valenzuela. Almost 1,486 ballots were sent in. First place received 12 points, second place nine, all the way down to one point for 10th place. Here are your choices: 1. Roy Campanella, 1,209 first-place votes, 15,867 points 2. Mike Piazza, 124 first-place votes, 11,733 points 3. John Roseboro, 82 first-place votes, 8,642 points 4. Mike Scioscia, 33 first-place votes, 8,256 points 5. Will Smith, 13 first-place votes, 7,918 points 6. Steve Yeager, 19 first-place votes, 7,006 points 7. Russell Martin, 5,774 points 8. Joe Ferguson, 2,803 points 9. Mickey Owen, 2,444 points 10. Jeff Torborg,1,512 points The next five: Paul Lo Duca, Yasmani Grandal, A.J. Ellis, Rick Dempsey, Norm Sherry. Who are your top 10 Dodgers first basemen of all time (including Brooklyn)? Email your list to top10firstbasemen@ and let me know. Many of you have asked for a list of players to consider for each position. Here are the 40 strongest first baseman candidates, in alphabetical order. Del Bissonette, Jack Bolling, Ken Boyer, Greg Brock, Dan Brouthers, Enos Cabell, Dolph Camilli, Hee-Seop Choi, Jake Daubert, Frank Dillon, Jack Doyle, Jack Fournier, Dave Foutz, David Freese, Freddie Freeman, Nomar Garciaparra, Steve Garvey, Adrián González, Buddy Hassett, Gil Hodges, Hughie Jennings, Tim Jordan, Eric Karros, Ed Konetchy, Norm Larker, Sam Leslie, George LaChance, James Loney, Dan McGann, Eddie Murray, Dick Nen, Dave Orr, Wes Parker, Bill Phillips, Albert Pujols, Olmedo Sáenz, Ed Stevens, Dick Stuart, Franklin Stubbs, Tommy Tucker. A reminder that players are listed at the position in which they played the most games for the Dodgers, which is why Garciaparra is listed here and not at shortstop. Mike Piazza hits a home run over the left-field roof and out of Dodger Stadium. Watch and listen here. Have a comment or something you'd like to see in a future Dodgers newsletter? Email me at and follow me on Twitter at @latimeshouston. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Videos of Drag Queens at Trump Musical Performance Go Viral
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Videos of drag queens attending a performance of Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center theatre while President Donald Trump was also in attendance have gone viral online. Why It Matters Trump has a contentious relationship with the Kennedy Center, which he appointed himself to chair in February. He then announced that he was firing most of the board of trustees and said that he would be in charge of programming going forward. The president told reporters in February that he "didn't like what they were showing" at the Kennedy Center and that he would ensure that the programming was "good" and "not woke." Trump's planned attendance at this performance of Les Misérables had already been well publicized, as in May, the cast of the show was reported to be considering boycotting the performance. What To Know Videos on social media showed the group of drag artists walking into the theatre before the show began and being met with raucous applause. "Trump went to the Kennedy Center to watch Les Misérables and it turned into a drag show.... love it for him!" the account @WUTangKids wrote on X (formerly Twitter) in a post that has been viewed 1.2 million times as of press time. Trump went to the Kennedy Center to watch Les Misérables and it turned into a drag show 🤣….love it for him! — Wu Tang is for the Children (@WUTangKids) June 11, 2025 This is a warmer reception than the president received, as he attended his first appearance at the arts venue since the venue's leadership was fired. Trump was met with boos and jeers at the performance, though this was ultimately drowned out by chants of "USA." Drag shows have long been a hot-button issue for Trump and his supporters, with lawmakers in several U.S. states enacting or attempting to enact laws that restrict drag performances. Trump wrote in a Truth Social post in February, "Just last year, the Kennedy Center featured Drag Shows specifically targeting our youth — THIS WILL STOP." The 2025-2026 schedule, however, includes Chicago, Moulin Rouge! The Musical, and Mrs. Doubtfire, all of which generally feature performers in drag. L: U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attend the opening night of "Les Misérables" at The Kennedy Center on June 11, 2025. R: Drag queens walk together to the Kennedy Center to... L: U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attend the opening night of "Les Misérables" at The Kennedy Center on June 11, 2025. R: Drag queens walk together to the Kennedy Center to attend the same performance. More/What People Are Saying Some social media users were critical of the drag queens' attendance and defensive over Trump. The X account @_e_tto_, in a post viewed 24,000 times as of reporting: "The empty seats and the scowls from his own crowd—some looking like they've stepped straight out of 'The Handmaid's Tale,' seething with rage at the mere sight of diversity—paint a perfect picture of MAGA's cultural war. The drag queens didn't just steal the spotlight—they exposed the fragility and fear at the heart of MAGA's so-called revolution." The TikTok account @3reecrossingradio, in a video viewed over 20,000 times, about the drag queens at the performance: "I don't know about you ladies and gentlemen, but we are in some interesting times. The X account @gogo22325, in a post viewed over 33,000 times: "I am a former broadway performer (and Les Miz cast member) and AEA. Drag queens were always filth and only found in late night sketchy dive bars. ALWAYS .The things that are glorified today are so disgusting . I could never return to the stage now." What Happens Next Whether actions like this from drag queen groups will continue remains to be seen, but given the current political tensions and the schedule of shows featuring drag performers, similar types of protests may occur at future events.
