I’ve gotten a bunch of e-mails about a Friday post about the Pine Tar incident. E-mailers point out that the penalty for too much pine tar on a bat is discarding the bat from the game. I now realize that I may never have really known the rule in question, and just—thanks to my Yankee-fanatic dad–grown-up assuming the Yankees were robbed. If so, my apologies to Royals fans. I wonder what else I’ve always been wrong about. What will I learn next: That cuts in the marginal tax rate don’t really spur investment and capital formation? That AFDC is good for low-income people? That Cosmo isn’t really a Wonder Dog?

E-mail: “I am just catching up on the Corner so forgive the lateness of this response. You compared Brett’s Home Run (The Pine Tar Incident) to the Florida Election Fiasco. This is a poor analogy. It is closer to Liberal activism which attributes new rights where none exist. The rule that limited pine tar was in effect to prevent the balls and other equipment from getting endlessly marked up with pine tar. It does not help a hitter hit the ball further. Like a liberal, Billy Martin, misused the rule to disallow a legit home run. The proper ruling by the umpire would be to remove the equipment (the bat) from the game upon becoming aware of the problem. The umpire (trial court judge?) over stepped his authority by overturning the home run. The MLB (Appeals Court) properly interpreted the ruling and over ruled the umpire (trial judge). Since this occured at the end of the game (the Royals’ last at bat), it was easy to reverse and finish out the game as if the call was made correctly.”