When A 17-Year-Old Girl Struck Out Two Baseball Legends

“After all, there’s only one answer to be made to the young fellow who is asking constantly for advice as to how to hit. The answer is: ‘Pick out a good one and sock it!’ ” —Babe Ruth




Jackie Mitchell loved sports. This 17-year-old leftie was especially fond of baseball. So when she was offered a chance to play for the Chattanooga Lookouts—and thus become the second woman to play professional baseball—she jumped at the chance. And in her first game, Mitchell found herself pitching against two legends: Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth. And she got ’em both.


Her name was Jackie Mitchell, and she was the second woman to play professional baseball. Sure, that’s an impressive feat, but that’s nothing compared to what happened when Jackie stepped onto the field. In 1931, this 17-year-old southpaw went up against two of the greatest hitters in baseball history: Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth.
Growing up in Memphis, one of Jackie’s neighbors was Dazzy Vance, a future Hall of Famer who taught the girl how to throw a mean sinker. During her teen years, Jackie played basketball in winter and women’s baseball in spring, and that’s when she caught the attention of Joe Engel, president of the Chattanooga Lookouts, a men’s minor league team. Known as the “P.T. Barnum of Baseball,” Engel loved a good gimmick. It was the Great Depression after all, and you had to fill those seats somehow.
A woman playing alongside the guys was a guaranteed draw, especially if she pitched in an exhibition game against the New York Yankees.
When Engel offered Jackie a contract, she didn’t hesitate, even though she only had a few days to practice for the big game. Finally, on April 2, Mitchell stepped into a stadium packed with 4,000 people and was introduced to the dynamic duo, Ruth and Gehrig. After Jackie took a few publicity photos with the Great Bambino and the Iron Horse, the game got underway.

When Ruth stepped up to the plate, the Lookouts replaced their starting pitcher with Jackie. The 17-year-old made her way to the mound, ready to face baseball’s most legendary hitter . . . and she struck him out.

 Her first two pitches were curves that baffled the Sultan of Swat, and her third was a fastball straight down the middle. Babe was so upset that he tossed his bat in frustration.
Gehrig also went down in three. She’d destroyed the greatest batters on the planet in just six pitches.
Jackie walked the next batter, probably because her arm hurt (remember, she only had a few days to warm up) so the Lookouts replaced her.

When she stepped off the field, everybody in the stadium cheered in admiration. But while she struck out Ruth and Gehrig, her career with the Lookouts didn’t last. Some say baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis canceled her contract although there’s no proof of that. Whatever happened, Jackie eventually left baseball and ended up in her father’s optometry business.

Sure, there are doubters, people who think the whole thing was a hoax. But up until the day she died in 1987, Jackie Mitchell swore she’d really struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, back to back, a feat most male pitchers only dreamed of.

Show Me The Proof

 Featured photo via Wikipedia
Baseball Hall of Fame: Dazzy Vance
VICE: The Woman Who Struck Out Babe Ruth And Lou Gehrig
The Daily Beast: The Myth of Jackie Mitchell, the Girl Who Struck Out Ruth and Gehrig
Smithsonian: The Woman Who (Maybe) Struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig

The Difference Between Gelato And Ice Cream

“Life is like an ice cream cone: You have to learn to lick it.” —Charles M. Schulz

While equally delicious, the higher fat content and added air of ice cream is what separates it from its frozen friend, gelato.

Gelato and ice cream seem one and the same to the untrained eye. Both frozen, creamy treats enjoyed by many with a variety of flavors, it’s hard to know what truly separates them aside from the slight tweak in texture. But there’s obviously something going on here—it’s all in how they are created.
In the USA, ice cream is regulated by the FDA, which dictates that it must contain at least 10 percent milk fat with most containing anywhere from 14 percent to 17 percent. On the other scoop, gelato has a fat content of around 3 percent to 10 percent, as it has no such regulations.

There’s also a special surprise in your ice cream tub you might not have known you had—a nice big spoonful of air, in some cases up to half the carton, just like the delicious kind you find in bags of potato chips. You see, during the production of ice cream, air is pumped in while the cream is whipped, greatly increasing the volume of the treat and simultaneously making it easier to scoop and quicker to melt.

Gelato however contains minimal air, only the amount that would be necessary for structure and scoopability, which makes its texture so creamy (despite the fact it contains much less actual cream than ice cream).

Show Me The Proof

Ice Cream vs. Gelato
Ice Cream vs. Gelato: The Differences of Frozen Desserts
What Is Gelato And How Does It Differ From Ice Cream?

 

The Massacre At Frank Lloyd Wright’s Estate

“I wanted to fill the grave myself.” —Frank Lloyd Wright

In 1914, celebrated architect Frank Lloyd Wright’s grand estate, Taliesin, was burnt to the ground by a servant named Julian Carlton. As the building burned, Carlton attacked the occupants with an axe, murdering seven. To this day, no one knows why.

Frank Lloyd Wright was America’s foremost architect, perhaps best known for the Fallingwater estate. He also had what might be politely called a “wandering eye,” despite a long marriage and six children. In 1903, while designing a house, he began carrying on with the wife of his client, Mamah Cheney. Wright’s wife, Kitty, refused him a divorce, figuring that his infatuation with Cheney would dry up as it had with all the previous women he’d dallied around with. To escape the absolute scandal that the affair had lit, Wright and Cheney lived in Europe for some time. Eventually, they moved back to America, staying in Wright’s secluded Wisconsin estate, Taliesin (named after a medieval Welsh poet).

On August 14, 1914, Taliesin was struck by unimaginable carnage. While members of the household were having lunch, newly hired servant Julian Carlton bolted the doors, drenched the floors in gasoline, and set the building ablaze. In the chaos, Carlton materialized with an axe, killing seven, including Mamah and her two children, Martha (age nine) and John (age 12). When rescuers arrived, they found Carlton nearby, foaming at the mouth from swallowing hydrochloric acid in a failed suicide bid. He was nearly lynched at the scene, but was eventually brought to jail.

Wright, who’d been away on business in Chicago, returned home the next day to what he would describe as a “devastating scene of horror.” Carlton, an immigrant from Barbados, never revealed his motive. There were theories that perhaps the couple “living in sin” offended his strict Christian sensibilities. But murdering children and attempting suicide would seem like extreme solutions. Frank Lloyd Wright never would get any answers to the mystery behind Carlton’s rampage. The servant made a few court appearances, but declined to say what inspired his bloodlust. He starved to death a few weeks later.

Although Taliesin was largely destroyed by the fire, Wright vowed to rebuild it as a tribute to his beloved Mamah. He succeeded, but bizarrely enough, Taliesin II would also burn to the ground, apparently the result of an electrical surge. Taliesin III stands to this day. Frank Lloyd Wright died in 1959, aged 91.

Show Me The Proof

Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin, Spring Green, Wisconsin
Mystery of the murders at Taliesin
The Taliesin massacre

 

When Russia Made Vodka Illegal

During the Russo-Japanese War, the Russian soldiers had a problem—vodka. Not about to let the same problems continue through World War I, Tsar Nicholas II made an incredibly ill-advised decision: He banned vodka. Even though the government tried to spin it as though life was so grand without the drink that even the animals were more happy, there was actually rioting in the streets, along with an increased demand for varnish and furniture polish. It also meant the loss of about one-third of the government’s revenue, and that’s never a good thing, especially during wartime.

If there’s anything that’s more Russian than vodka, we’re not sure what it is. While Russians might not actually drink as much as you’d expect, they do drink lots and lots of vodka, and they have for decades. But in 1914, Tsar Nicholas II banned vodka in a ruling that would force prohibition for the next 11 years.

The theory was at least somewhat sound, and incredibly similar to what the French were doing with absinthe. World War I was lingering just on the horizon, and the powers that be wanted their troops to be in their finest fighting shape. They couldn’t do that when they had unregulated access to vodka, and Russia had been through the problems before.

Only 10 years prior, they’d been at war with Japan. They’d found their soldiers to be less than capable, with their finest fighting men regularly inebriated and diagnosed with chronic, alcohol-related disorders. So the tsar decided it was about time to do something drastic about it, but as well-meaning as it might have been, it didn’t have a good effect.

The ban was made even more dramatic not just because of the impact it was going to have on the morale of the troops and of the civilians, but also because revenue from vodka accounted for a whopping one-third of the revenue of the country. The country’s 1915 budget had to be drastically cut to make up for the massive shortage.

Needless to say, the ban didn’t go over well. August 1914 saw rioting and the destruction of more than 200 drinking establishments, and the military was dispatched to put down the chaos that stormed the streets. Hundreds upon hundreds of people died, and those that had stashes of alcohol—like the wine cellars of the nobility—were forced to dump their booze to keep from becoming a target for thirsty soldiers.

And, because where there’s a will there’s a way, the vodka ban resulted in a massive upswing in another area of manufacturing: the large-scale production of varnishes and furniture polish. The Russian people couldn’t have their vodka, so they resorted to brewing and distilling whatever they could make at home out of anything that they could get their hands on.
Those that were turning to their own home brew were getting their fix elsewhere; cocaine and heroin replaced vodka, and even though those, too, were technically illegal, traffic from Greece meant that opium was pretty readily available.

That all didn’t keep the Russian government from trying to spin it so it sounded like banning vodka was the best thing that had happened to the country since sliced bread. According to the official reports and the verdict of what we’re going to say is some questionable statistical research, Russian life was amazing after vodka disappeared.

Not only were people happier, but so were all the domesticated animals in the country. Hospitals and asylums were virtually empty, doctors were left just sitting around twiddling their thumbs (we assume). Suddenly, everyone was saving all the money they had been spending on vodka before. The government admitted that there were, however, some problems.
Sadly, the suicide rate was so far down that medical schools were a little short on corpses for their lessons.
And things weren’t so rosy for the government, either. War is expensive, after all, and a world war isn’t the time to be cutting your available income by about 30 percent. The tsar was unable to keep the government afloat; more importantly, he wasn’t able to buy his supporters’ loyalties anymore, either.
And we all know what happened to the tsar.

Show Me The Proof

 

Russia Beyond the Headlines: Sobering effect: What happened when Russia banned booze
The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics, by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith
The Alcoholic Empire: Vodka & Politics in Late Imperial Russia, by Patricia Herlihy

The First Female Doctor In The US Was Allowed To Study Only As A Joke

“Physicians, of all men, are most happy: whatever good success soever they have, the world proclaimeth and what faults they commit, the earth covereth.” —Frances Quarles, “Hieroglyphics of the Life of Man”




As a young woman in the early 1800s, Elizabeth Blackwell was disgusted by the very thought of studying medicine. However, when a dying friend told her that a female doctor would have made her illness easier, Blackwell applied to medical school. As a joke, there was a unanimous vote to admit her. Although patients and other doctors initially shunned her after she became a doctor, Blackwell went on to establish the New York Infirmary for Women and Children, providing healthcare for the poor and medical training for other women. She also helped to found the London School of Medicine for Women.


As a young woman in the early 1800s, Elizabeth Blackwell was disgusted by the very thought of studying medicine. She chose to go into teaching instead. However, when a dying friend told her that a female doctor would have made her illness easier, Elizabeth applied to over a dozen medical schools. All but Geneva Medical College in New York rejected her. But Geneva didn’t really want a woman, either. The dean and faculty decided to let the all-male student body vote on Elizabeth’s admission. If anyone voted against it, they would reject her.

However, as a joke, the students voted unanimously to accept Elizabeth. No one thought she would actually show up for school. But she surprised everyone, eventually graduating with her class in 1847 as the first American woman to earn an MD.

In 1849, Elizabeth traveled to Paris for post-graduate work at the renowned maternity hospital, La Maternite. While there, she treated a baby with eye infections, possibly from gonorrhea passed on by the mother during birth. When Elizabeth accidentally spread the infection to her own left eye, she was blinded in that eye, ending her dream of becoming a surgeon. Next, she went to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, where she practiced everything except gynecology and pediatrics, which were to become her specialties.

Elizabeth returned to New York City in 1850. Hardly anyone wanted to go to a woman doctor, so she eventually set up medical help for people who wouldn’t be so concerned with her gender: the poor. In 1857, along with Dr. Emily Blackwell, her sister, and Dr. Marie Zakrzewska, Elizabeth Blackwell founded the New York Infirmary for Women and Children, providing healthcare for the poor and medical training for other women.

Emily Blackwell had become the third woman in America to earn an MD in 1854. Like her sister, Emily was rejected by almost every medical college to which she applied. Rush Medical College in Chicago accepted her but kicked her out of the program after the first year at the insistence of the Medical Society of Illinois. She eventually finished her training at Case Western Reserve University’s School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. After moving to America and meeting Emily, Marie applied to Case Western’s School of Medicine, too. She earned her MD in 1856.
Despite the tremendous contributions of all three women to the opening of the New York Infirmary, it was Emily who kept the institution going strong after Elizabeth and Marie left for other opportunities two years later.

In the following years, Elizabeth spent a lot of time traveling through Europe. She wrote frequently on topics of medicine and health. She also became involved in social reform, especially women’s rights, Christian socialism and various medical issues. In the mid-1870s, Elizabeth helped to found the London School of Medicine for Women. She ended her career there as a professor of gynecology in 1907, when a fall down some stairs left her with serious injuries. Elizabeth died in 1910 from a stroke.

Show Me The Proof

Changing the Face of Medicine: Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, Dr. Emily Blackwell, Dr. Marie E. Zakrzewska
PBS Newshour: How Elizabeth Blackwell became the first female doctor in the U.S.

Death From Snake Or Spider Bite Is Extremely Rare

“Spiders were around long before humans, and it is likely they will be around in some number far into the future, even if humans are not.” —Leslie Brunetta & Catherine L. Craig, Spider Silk




Spiders and snakes creep us out and are probably near the top of many people’s lists of fears. However, their bites are among the least likely killers. In the United States you have about a one in 50 million chance of dying from snake bite. And since the dawn of modern anti-venom, death from spider is almost nonexistent. Even in Australia there have been no reported deaths by spider since 1979.


The things that creep and crawl along the ground—they are almost a primal fear in humans. They slither, they move on way too many legs, it seems unnatural. This has caused us to have great fear of creatures like spiders and snakes. Many people would say they are one of the things they fear the most, and the misconception that you can easily die because of a snake or spider is very widespread. However, you are much more likely to die in an automobile accident, or even get struck by lightning.

When it comes to snakes, many of them are not even venomous and not all of those who are present a significant threat to humans. And while countries like the United States may not have many poisonous spiders, even in Australia they’ve got a pretty good handle on the whole snake bit thing. The reason for this is anti-venom and current medical technology. Unless someone is out in the wilderness and too far away from a hospital, in all likelihood they will be perfectly fine. Venomous snakes are also capable of controlling whether they actually inject poison when they bite you. When they decline to actually poison you, it is known as a “dry bite.” Studies have shown that for some snakes the percentage of dry bites is as high as 50 percent.

As for spiders, many people are under the impression that spider bites are common, but they are not. In truth, that freaky apparatus with too many legs creeping across your floor is much more scared of you than you are of it. After all, humans are quite huge in comparison and spiders gain nothing from attacking us. Experts have found that in many cases people misinterpreted other things as spider bites, and suggested that doctors should spend more time learning what bites are caused by what insects. Of course, some spiders are capable of biting humans and will do so if provoked. However, even in the cases of the most dangerous spiders in the world, they won’t really have a realistic chance of killing you before you can get to a hospital. In Australia there have been no reported spider deaths in many, many years.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get medical attention if you believe you have been bitten by a venomous snake or spider. If that is the case you should call emergency services and get anti-venom for it. The anti-venom is the key though. Now that we have the technology, unless you are miles from any civilization or hospitals, we’ve just about got the poisonous snake and spider problem licked.

Show Me The Proof

University of Florida: Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation: Venomous Snake FAQs
Burke Museum: Myths About “Dangerous Spiders”
Arthropod Ecology: Spiders do not bite

 

The Difference Between Bengal And Siberian Tigers

“Even after killing ninety nine tigers the Maharaja should beware of the hundredth.” —Kalki Krishnamurthy, in “The Tiger King”




Tigers are the largest members of the cat family, and the subject of numerous, worldwide conservation efforts. There are several different subspecies of tiger (three have already gone extinct in this century), with the Siberian (or “Amur”) and the Bengal being the most commonly seen and spoken about. While they might look very similar, differences include size, habitat, and even their color.


One of the most obvious differences is where they are found. The Bengal tiger is also known as the Indian tiger, as it found in scattered (now rather isolated) pockets throughout India. There are also Bengal tigers found in Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, and along the eastern coast of China. The climate here is temperate to tropical and very wet, with the tigers thriving in mangrove forests, grasslands, and deciduous forests.

The Siberian tiger’s natural habitat is the much, much colder areas to the north. The handful that still exist in the wild can mostly be found in the chilly forests of Eastern Russia, with some in the northernmost parts of China and Korea. In stark contrast to the more temperate habitats of its cousins, the Siberian tiger thrives in coniferous and birch forests where the temperatures can reach as low as -45° Celsius (-50 F).

The differences in habitat mean that the Siberian tiger has developed a much thicker, heavier coat than the Bengal. They also tend to have thick fat stores along their sides and belly that help to keep them insulated against the below-freezing temperatures.

There are also differences in color that developed from their different habitats. The Siberian tiger is the lightest of all tiger subspecies, with their coats tending to be a much paler orange than their southern cousins. The stripes of a Siberian tiger are brown instead of black, but all tigers share the trait of having completely unique stripe patterns, much like our fingerprints. While tigers are very fast over short distances, they use camouflage to stalk their prey; the drastic difference in color is necessary to keep them hidden in their different environments.

Siberian tigers are the bigger of the two subspecies, with males weighing up to 300 kilograms (675 lbs) and standing up to 0.9 meters (3 ft) at the shoulder. Bengal tigers tend to reach their max size at around 240 kilograms (525 lbs), while being slightly shorter. The females of both species are considerably smaller than the males.

Habitat differences also lead to a different diet, though both tiger subspecies are easily capable of single-handedly taking down prey that is much, much bigger than they are. The Siberian tiger tends to hunt creatures like elk and deer, but has been known to kill and eat bears as well as smaller game.

The Bengal will hunt water buffalo, wild pigs, and other large, hoofed animals, even rhinos and elephants. Bengals that have been tagged and released show a wide hunting ground, covering up to 50 square kilometers (20 sq mi) in a single night’s hunt. The Siberian can cover twice that.

The Bengal is the least endangered of the tiger species, but that’s not necessarily something to be proud of. They could once be found throughout their South Asia habitat, but as of 2013 it’s estimated that there are only about 1,850 individuals left in the wild. The Siberian tiger, too, is being pushed out of their native habitat. While the harsh conditions they live in make it less likely that they’re going to encroach on someone’s territory, logging and deforestation—along with poaching—have left less than 500 individuals in the wild.

Show Me The Proof

NatGeo: Siberian Tiger
Natgeo: Bengal Tiger
ARKive: Tiger videos, photos and facts