It’s June 29, 1996, and the Orioles managed just three hits in seven innings against Yankees starter Andy Pettitte. They dug a 4-0 hole, and though Bobby Bonilla’s ninth-inning three-run homer made it close, the Birds dropped a tough one, 4-3, in the Bronx.

As Pettitte picked up his 12th win of the season, O’s ace Mike Mussina was denied his 11th. He gave up all four runs over six innings of work.

“They’re a good ballclub,” Mussina said with a shrug to the Sun’s Buster Olney. “They don’t get to be 10 or 15 games over .500 unless they play well.”

Wade Boggs, Tino Martinez, and Paul O’Neill had two hits apiece for the Yankees.

The O’s lineup didn’t have Brady Anderson in it today, as the star centerfielder — and major-league home run leader — woke up with a sore right shoulder after trying to make a diving catch last night. In another late shuffle to the lineup, Roberto Alomar shifted to designated hitter after aggravating a hip injury last night. The move shifted Bonilla into right field, and he responded by going 3-for-4 with all three RBI.

With the loss, the O’s are once again 5½ games behind the Yankees in the AL East. They are only four back of the struggling White Sox in the wild car race, though.

Here’s the box score with the not-so-lovely totals.

The main drama in Birdland today continues to be the fallout after owner Peter Angelos questioned star shortstop Cal Ripken’s leadership yesterday. Angelos had a “summit” with Ripken before today’s game. The two met for an hour.

“To me, there’s no problem whatsoever with Mr. Angelos,” Ripken said. (Baltimore Sun, p. 1C, June 30, 1996)

“We had an excellent discussion,” the boss agreed.

Well, I guess that’s settled. Water under the bridge, or is it?

“I’m looking for aggressive leadership on the field, which he can do better than anyone else, and if he does, this team can play as a unit and rise to the occasion,” Angelos said, somewhat reiterating his comments that started all this. But he doesn’t want that obvious criticism to come off as criticism. “I was not suggesting he wasn’t exercising any leadership. I was just suggesting in addition to all the things he already does to lead this team, [he could display] a more aggressive leadership.”

Meanwhile, Cal said:

Just kidding, sort of. He actually said, “People’s definitions of leadership can vary. Some people think being a leader is standing on top of the dugout waving a towel. I personally don’t believe that. But I am who I am as a player. I know my contributions as a player, and my contributions as a teammate. I will continue to try and be better at that, do things to try and help the team.”

Here’s hoping winning fixes everything, and we can get to the winning again sooner rather than later.

A dramatic late homer from Bobby Bo adds a brick, but not a win.

Orioles (41-36) at Yankees (47-31) 1:05 p.m.
BAL – LHP David Wells (4-7, 5.54 ERA)
NYY – RHP Ramiro Mendoza (3-3, 6.21 ERA)

It’s that time of year, so once again we’re talking about a Supreme Court decision. In what the Sun calls a “splintered Supreme Court,” the justices upheld Congress’ power to take action to keep children from seeing “indecent” programs on cable TV. But the court refused to write new rules to govern “the Information Revolution,” as several justices still don’t understand what is happening with electronic media.

In a 7-2 decision, the court said an anti-indecency law passed four years ago didn’t violate the First Amendment. The law leverages cable providers to block sexually explicit programs. 

In a separate 6-3 vote, the court struck down part of the 1992 cable law that “would have required an operator who wanted to permit indecent programming to put it on a single leased channel, block it from viewers, and make it difficult to unblock.” The majority said that provision went too far.

And then in a third 5-4 vote, the court nixed another part of the law that “would have allowed cable operators to veto sexually explicit programs on public-access channels leased to government agencies, educational institutions and public interest groups.” The justices said simply that there was no reason for such restriction because Congress didn’t show that indecency even appeared on those channels at all.

But these rulings only apply to cable TV for now, as the justices were reluctant to set precedent for emerging new media.

“In my own ignorance,” said Justice David Souter, who voted in the majority on all aspects of the ruling, “I have to accept the real possibility that if we had to decide today just what the First Amendment should mean in cyberspace, we would get it fundamentally wrong.”

I wonder if at any point in the next 30 years we’ll be forced to consider what the First Amendment means in cyberspace?

Welcome to a recurring segment where I find fun things in today’s (in 1996) Baltimore Sun!

It’s Tour de France time! Get your blood doping ready!