Original conservative thought, and other myths

You know those lame e-mails that miscreants send around about your favorite politicians? Those screeds filled with "facts" -- most of which are easily debunked -- that clog your inbox during election season? Of course you do. You probably got more than your share of them about Obama or McCain or Palin last fall. I even wrote about the phenomenon, and did a little research that indicated that Obama was the target of about six times as many false attacks as McCain in the accountability-free world of e-mail land.

I recently got another one of those screeds from one of my most reliable right-wing trolls, purporting to compare the "gaffes" of Obama's first 120 days with the record of one George W. Bush. You might have received this e-mail too. It's been posted repeatedly on right-wing websites and in online discussion forums the past week or two.

Well, apparently the editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal don't get out much, or they don't have any right-wing friends, or they don't read right-wing political sites, because they just printed the very same comparison as a letter to the editor on Friday. Some local genius named Warren Willis Sr. did the old cut-and-paste thing and sent it almost verbatim to the R-J, and the paragons of journalistic virtue ran it as the top letter in Friday's editorial page.

I'm not even here to debate the content of the letter -- it points out some of Obama's inevitable and regrettable missteps, blows a few others out of proportion, but seems to endorse the idea that Bush's record of incompetence, corporate cronyism, fiscal malfeasance and utter disregard for the truth compares favorably to four months of Barack Obama in the White House.

My point is that either the R-J can't differentiate between a recycled e-mail rant and legitimate, original political criticism, or they didn't have anything better to run in its place. Either way, it's a sad statement on the journalistic ethics or competence of the R-J's editorial board and opinion page staff. Nice going, Sherm.

Strange bedfellows

I find myself feeling oddly sympathetic toward Miss California in the latest Miss USA kerfuffle. Not because I agree with her stand on same-sex marriage -- I don't -- but because I have no idea what that issue has to do with one's qualifications to serve as Miss USA.


Perez Hilton is gay. And he wants to see people like him have the same civil rights as the rest of the planet. I get that. But there comes a point where you have to pick your battles. And the Miss USA contest is not the place for this battle to play out. I understand that it's important to get this issue on the front burner, but this kind of attitude is just going to alienate people who have yet to form a concrete opinion on the issue.

Beauty contests attract a pretty traditional audience, so I guess Hilton figured he'd be reaching a group of people who hadn't thought much about same-sex marriage. But to basically admit that he wouldn't vote for Miss California because of her answer to his question about the issue sends the wrong message. Hilton comes off as just as intolerant as the Yes on 8 crowd in California.

Now, Hilton has given the right-wing bloggers, radio hosts and pundits all kinds of fodder for their fake-outrage cannons. Nicely done, you old queen.

Where Pulitzer happens

Huge kudos to the Las Vegas Sun for winning a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of unsafe working conditions at Strip construction projects. Man, a friggin' Pulitzer! That's huge, people. Only one other Nevada newspaper has ever won a Pulitzer, and that was in Reno back in 1977.

Never too early to start your Christmas shopping

Just found out that my book is available for pre-order on Amazon.

Feeling kinda weird right now ... I mean, I knew this day was coming, but to see it out there after all the work we did is very, very rewarding. It certainly adds a new dimension to my egosurfing.

Two new Weekly stories for yours truly

This week, readers of the Las Vegas Weekly are treated to not one, but TWO articles by noted freelance writer P. Donnelly. One was right up my musical alley -- a review of the new disc by Mark Olson and Gary Louris, the dudes who founded one of my all-time favorite bands, The Jayhawks. The other article was a fun sports piece about two guys who got pulled out of the crowd at a UNLV basketball game to show off their shooting skills during a timeout. Both were really nice guys and as you'll read, they both cleared the bar they'd set for themselves.

Read more Mark Olson and Gary Louris: Ready for the Flood ...

Read more Shooting Stars ...

SI cover line FAIL

I'm a reasonably creative and sports-minded individual. I get puns, frequently use metaphors, and can crank out a simile like Bill Simmons cranks out podcasts. (See what I did there?)

But even for me, this SI cover line is an epic fail. If I have to take a full 60 seconds to figure out what "That's Six for the Sixth" means, I'm guessing the meaning sailed way over the heads of the average reader.

If you still haven't figured it out, "Six" refers to the touchdown, which is also known as "six" because it's worth six points. And that "six" gave the Steelers their sixth Super Bowl title.

Come on, SI. Don't make us work too hard. You're already about to get a flood of "cancel my subscription" mail with your upcoming swimsuit issue. Don't piss off a nation's worth of composition teachers too.

Back in the saddle

This week I took a big step. I successfully convinced the editors of the Las Vegas Weekly to accept the idea of a semi-regular sports column, penned by yours truly. This reminds me of the heyday of Channel 4000, when I wrote a weekly column -- unpaid -- for a full year before the parent company finally decided to bring me on-board full-time.

I won't have as much leeway with this column -- my topics will have to have some sort of local hook, which could entail just about anything since Las Vegas is such a national-interest city, so I'm not complaining, I'm just saying. Anyway, here's the debut:

"Las Vegas has a long and complicated history with the National Football League. In the realm of mutually beneficial yet often dysfunctional relationships of the last half-century, you have Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Lennon and Paul McCartney, Batman and the Joker, Terrell Owens and his ego and Las Vegas and the NFL."

Read more of "The NFL's Secret Lover" ...

Back from my NBC ban

I didn't want to point any fingers or make any excuses for my prolonged absence from the blogorama, but it's somebody's fault, so I'll just come out and say it: Screw you, NBC.

Taking a cue from the inimitable Ann Coulter, I too am outraged by the Peacock Network's decision to ban me from its numerous media platforms. I mean, that's the only conclusion I can draw from my continued absence from NBC's various shows. It must be a conspiracy to keep The Man (i.e. me) down. Because remember, I'm a man. That reality is no longer in doubt.

What other reason could the brain wizards at NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC Sports, and Bravo have for ignoring my accomplishments and freezing me out of their programming? When I completed my triathlon, did I get an invite to the Today Show? When I hit my five-team NFL parlay, was I interviewed on Football Night in America (aka "Sunday")?

The answer to both questions, sadly, is a big, fat, resounding "no." So I've decided that I will no longer remain silent in the face of this obvious discrimination against Minnesota ex-pats in Las Vegas. Sure, maybe I'm just trying to grease the wheels for an appearance on the couch with Leno, Lauer or Conan when my first book comes out in June, but let's not automatically assume my motives are that cynical.

After all, it worked so well for Coulter. All she had to do was whisper into Matt Drudge's ear when her "Today" appearance was postponed, and 24 hours later, there was her enormous Adam's apple bobbing to and fro on the morning show.

So, I will continue to protest NBC's decision to deny me my rightful publicity by refraining from blogging until such time as they see fit to invite me to 30 Rock for a sit-down with Ann Curry, let me host "SNL" or cast me in the next season of "The Biggest Loser."

OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a little. I'll probably start posting here again on a regular basis very soon. But it still sucks.

She's a rising star

The most compelling subtext to come out of this campaign is the rising-star status of a woman who used the past two months to burst onto the national scene, a smart, charming, affable woman who's a great communicator and has flashed the potential to become a cornerstone of the political scene for the foreseeable future.

I refer to, of course ... MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.

What, you thought I was talking about Sarah Palin? The woman who reportedly thought Africa was a country, not a continent? Or who didn't know that NAFTA was a treaty signed by Canada, Mexico and the U.S.? Or whose much-reported $150K shopping spree apparently was much, much, much more expensive?

No, I'm not talking about her. I'm talking about the new voice of the center-left. A lesbian liberal that even Pat Buchanan can love.

If you haven't caught her show (which follows flame-thrower Keith Olbermann on a nightly basis), Ms. Maddow brings a decidedly leftist bent to her overview of the day's news, but she does it with a sprinkle of wit and a fairness and balance that Fox News could only dream of.

Maybe it's because she's a Rhodes Scholar, so she understands that you have to show all sides of an argument to give your audience enough evidence to show that you're right. Or maybe it's because she always idenfities who her guests are supporting (i.e. "Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar is a Barack Obama supporter") when she introduces them.

Or maybe it's because she just flat-out rocks. Whatever, it's clear that she's kicking ass and taking names. Her ratings have blown away those of her predecessor in that time slot, and are causing the talk giants at Fox to look over their shoulders in fear.

If you're tired of the "my party, right or wrong" type of commentary that's taken over cable news at the expense of careful thought and nuance, give Rachel Maddow a shot. I'm confident that you won't be disappointed.

Fear and loathing in ... Maplewood?

Believe me, I'm hoping that this will turn out OK and either it'll amount to nothing, or it'll end up with a good guy getting the help that he needs, but no matter how this ends, I have to say, I want a t-shirt with this on the front:

Staring at the phone

I hadn't planned to take today off, but work prevented me from getting to the club. I have a very weird job. Sure, there's a lot of freedom when you're a freelancer, but when you're on (or past) deadline and you're waiting for one person to call you so you can get the interview you need to finish your story, it's kinda like being a fireman on call. Not as important, of course, but you get the gist.

You see, many of the people on whom I rely for these interviews are professional athletes and coaches. And I don't have to tell you that they are Very Important People whose schedules cannot be disrupted. Thus, when a PR flak tells me that a coach or player is going to call me "sometime today," I can't disappear for two hours to go to the gym. Or even for an hour. I have to be sitting by the phone, recorder in hand, interview notes ready to go, on the off chance that one of these Very Important People will actually follow through with his promise and call me back.

Sigh. That's why I've always preferred to cover women's sports. Not only do most female athletes -- collegiate and professional -- offer better quotes, even in quick-hitter soundbite sessions, but they actually appreciate the attention that the media gives their sports. Title IX may be 35 years old, but these women still see themselves as ambassadors of their respective sports, and thus they're more than happy to do the media dance with any schmuck holding a microphone or notepad.

And in case you're wondering why female athletes offer better quotes, it's not necessarily because they're more personable. My theory is that they're actually smarter than their male counterparts. That's because most women who push themselves hard enough to become an elite athlete also have the drive to succeed in everything else they do. Thus, they're usually good students -- the WNBA and US women's soccer team, for example, are filled with college graduates -- so not only are they motivated to promote their sports, they can string a few sentences together without tripping over their tongues.

So whether it's been Julie Foudy, Brandi Chastain, Sue Bird, A.J. Mleczko or Shannon Bolden, I've always been impressed with the level of thought and consideration that these women have put into their interviews with me. Suffice it to say, I never got the same sense from Randy Moss -- although Matt Birk is pretty darn good.

I'm ba-a-a-a-a-a-ck!

And while I was away, I got a little ESPN cred! From a Jayson Stark blog post:

• And loyal reader Patrick Donnelly noticed something cool about Twins starter Nick Blackburn's season. In back-to-back starts last month, he beat both World Series teams, the Red Sox and Rockies. But thanks to the miracle of interleague play, that also happened just last year, according to Elias. The last man to do it: Jamie Moyer, by beating the Tigers on June 16 and then the Cardinals six days later. Nevertheless, the fact that all of this stuff unfurled, in real non-fictionalized life, is just one more reason baseball is the greatest sport there is. Don't you think?

OK, it's pretty nerdy of me to be excited about this, but hey, I'm pretty much a nerd when it comes to baseball.

Recommended: Ray Ratto

You might have noticed my "Other Good Reads" list of links on the leftnav, and you also might have wondered who those people are and why I recommend them so highly. So occasionally I will tell you a little bit more about them.

Today's subject: Ray Ratto, sports columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle and CBSSportsline.com. Why do I like Ratto? I've never met the guy, but he seems like the kind of person I'd enjoy talking to. His writing style is conversationally formal -- i.e. he sounds smart without sounding like a professor. And his sense of humor comes shining through in every column. My earliest recollection of a Rattoism was his mention of a streaker at the Oakland Coliseum, "wedding tackle dangling in the breeze." I thought that was clever, and pretty bold for a mainstream newspaper, especially in the sports column. Plus, he's a tubby, cynical sports guy, so you could say he's somewhat of a personal role model of mine.

Here's a recent column from Ratto's Chronicle archive that helps illustrate what I like about him. It's about the possibility of Major League Baseball adopting some form of instant replay to correct umpire mistakes. Here's the lede:

Rumor has it that Major League Baseball is attacking its current spate of blown calls in a fascinating way - by flirting with the idea of using replay in the Arizona Fall League.

Which is to say that in its forward-thinking view, baseball thinks the way to test the efficacy of replay is to use it in venues where few people care about the original call, let alone a second view of it.

Other gems include his notion that the controversy is again a hot topic because the Yankees' Alex Rodriguez lost a home run to a missed call last week ("if a Yankee or Red Sox player sneezes, someone wants to make antihistamines mandatory"), as well as his description of player/manager/umpire arguments: "angry men in knickers who believe they have been wronged act(ing) as though wasp hives have been forcibly inserted in their delicates."

See? Who wouldn't like a regular dose of that kind of prose? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr. Ray Ratto!

MMM: Breaking news in a Sept. 12 world

Last week, I was putting in 45 minutes on the elliptical machine at the club and half-assedly monitoring the bank of TV screens above my noggin when ESPN News flashed a bright red "BREAKING NEWS" graphic along their crawl. The "breaking news" that followed was that Larry Brown had been named head coach of the Charlotte Bobcats.

Funny thing, though -- I'd heard that exact same story four hours earlier, on ESPN Radio, no less! If news is at least four hours old, and it's been reported on one of your own media platforms, how exactly is it "breaking" news?

This has been a pet peeve of mine for awhile, going back at least to the time when TV news directors started lining up with the "if it bleeds, it leads" crowd in an effort to drive ratings. Time and again, I'd see the "BREAKING NEWS" graphic on screen, only to be shown a car chase along an LA freeway, or a house fire in a distant suburb.

For me, there are two types of misleading done by these media charlatans. In the case of Larry Brown's hiring, it was certainly news, but it certainly was not breaking -- at least, not four hours after it had been first reported. And in the case of the car chase or the house fire, it certainly was breaking, but was it news? That is to say, if it hadn't been going on during the half-hour newscast, would they break into programming to report on it, or even report on it at all in a later telecast?

This really started to irk me in the months after 9/11. I was working in the Internet news world at the time, and we kept a constant vigil on the various cable news networks to make sure we had wire copy on our site whenever a new development in the search-and-recover efforts arose, or a new threat had been uncovered. Our heartbeats would race whenever one of these networks splashed a "BREAKING NEWS" graphic on the screen, and in the wake of that horrible day, most of them were very responsible in limiting the use of that ploy to when they actually had something both newsworthy and timely to report.

However, it wasn't long before big media went back to their typically sensationalist ways. Soon, it felt like they were using me, playing on the raw nerves still exposed in the months after the towers fell to pimp their latest non-scandal scandal. They knew that, like Pavlov's dogs, all they had to do was ring the bell and flash "BREAKING NEWS" and I'd fly to the screen at full attention to hear what they had to report.

Sadly enough, that ploy even crept into the advertising world. I specifically recall a TV commercial that aired in late 2001, with two fake news anchors breathlessly stating, "We interrupt this broadcast to bring you this breaking news ..." only to find out the "news" was a big sale at the local auto dealership. Given that we'd just spent a couple months living in fear of a follow-up terrorist attack, and that the news organizations actually did report on 9/11 and the ensuing developments in this very way, this type of ad was craven at best and positively cruel at worst. And the suits at the TV stations who accepted this kind of ad in the months after 9/11 ... well, there's a special place in Hell reserved for them.

Which brings me back to ESPN News. Sure, their "news" isn't as serious as a terrorist attack or an anthrax scare, but given that ESPN reports solely on the sports world, shouldn't the "BREAKING NEWS" tag be saved for something that's actually breaking, and actually news, at least in the context of the sports world? If you cry wolf often enough, you won't be able to reach your audience when you actually have something newsworthy to report. And I probably won't bat an eye the next time I see the bright red graphic on ESPN News.

Then again, we're talking about a network that invested hours upon hours of SportsCenter to determine "Who's Now?" so nothing they do should surprise me anymore.

Book review: The Devil in the White City

Just wrapped up Erik Larson's "The Devil in the White City," a look back at the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago and the heinous crimes of America's first known serial killer, H.H. Holmes.

My wife read it first and highly recommended it, so that might have established unrealistic expectations, but I have to say I was a bit disappointed in the pace of the book. First of all, it's hard to categorize it, because it's neither fish nor fowl. It's a novelization of the actual events surrounding the World's Fair, including tremendous detail (even excruciating detail) on the process the fatcats of Chicago went through to gain the rights to host the fair and the construction of the buildings and preparation of the grounds.

I say excruciating, because unless you're an architecture wonk, the first 200 or so pages are going to be a bit of a bore. I love history and true crime stories, so I thought this would be a great fit for me, but instead much of it read like the minutes from a series of committee meetings. Larson tried like hell to get me interested in the lives of the various architects and barons of the Chicago business community at the turn of the century, especially Daniel Burnham, the man he describes as most responsible for the fair's success.

But the problem is, this was really two books. The story of the fair takes up about 75% of the text, while the rest centers on the fascinatingly creepy Dr. Holmes. Larson generally alternates chapters, with one focusing on Burnham and the fair and the next on Holmes, with the pacing of the story leading me to expect some kind of great intersection of the two plots.

Alas, there's precious little payoff there. I was hoping there would be a big chase scene through the fair, or an American version of Sherlock Holmes tracking the devious killer through the "White City," but it just didn't happen that way. The murders took place at the same time as the fair, and many of the victims were lured to Chicago by the fair, but they really didn't have anything to do with the fair.

In the end, I realized that I learned a lot about what made the 1893 Chicago World's Fair such a historically significant event, but I wanted to know even more about the killer and his evil deeds. I guess I'll have to wait for the movie, which is supposed to be coming out next year. If it focuses as much on the architects as Larson did, it will make "Ishtar" look like "The Matrix."

Why televised debates suck

Bashing Political Punditry Week continues with this astounding op-ed piece by the New York Times' Frank Rich, decrying the performance of ABC debate moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos in the latest Clinton-Obama jawfest last week in Philadelphia.

By all accounts, the questions asked by ABC's tag-team tandem fell woefully shy of probing the issues that actually matter to most Americans. Or should matter to most Americans. Instead of addressing bottom-line issues like the economy, the war in Iraq, or health care, we got more of the usual schtick, with breathless questions about "Bittergate," Serbian snipers and tenuous connections to long-forgotten controversial figures.

Here's the money shot:

"In this one-size-fits-all analysis, Mr. Obama must be the new Dukakis, sure to be rejected by white guys easily manipulated by Lee Atwater-style campaigns exploiting race and class. But some voters who lived through 1988 have changed, and quite a few others are dead. In 2008, they are supplanted in part by an energized African-American electorate and the young voters of all economic strata who fueled the Obama movement that many pundits didn’t take seriously before Iowa. And that some still don’t. Cokie Roberts of ABC predicted in February that young voters probably won’t show up in November because 'they never have before' and 'they’ll be tired.'"

Read on ...

Why political coverage sucks

From Glen Greenwald of Salon.com:

"Our elections are dominated by the same tired personality script, trotted out over and over and over. Democrats and liberals -- no matter how poor their upbringing, no matter how self-made they are, no matter how egalitarian their policies -- are the freakish, out-of-touch elitists who despise the values of the Regular Americans. Right-wing leaders -- no matter how extravagantly rich they are by virtue of other people's money, no matter how insulated their lives are, no matter how indifferent their policies are to the vast rich/poor gap -- are the normal, salt-of-the-earth Regular Folk. These petty, cliched storylines drown out every meaningful consideration and dictate our election outcomes, and they are deployed automatically.

"It doesn't matter what the candidates actually say or do. The establishment press just waits for the right episode and then reflexively and eagerly fills in the gaps in the shallow script -- the script with which they are intimately familiar and which serves as their only framework for talking about and understanding political disputes."

Read on ...

MMM: Already sick of it

I don't know about you, but I am already sick of the national attention given to the Yankees and Red Sox this year. They just played a three-game series at Fenway over the weekend, and lo and behold, all three games were nationally televised: Friday night, an ESPN special; Saturday, the FOX game of the week; Sunday, the ESPN Sunday night game of the week.

It's a pattern that played out multiple times last year, and it's got to stop. Is there any storyline left that hasn't been played out to death? We know, the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees and there was supposedly a curse placed on the Boston franchise. In 2004, the Red Sox ended that supposed curse by rallying from a 3-0 deficit to defeat the Yankees in the ALCS. And they've won two of the last four World Series, while the Yankees remain the franchise with the most world championships under their belts.

ENOUGH! GIVE IT A REST! GIVE US SOME OTHER GAMES BETWEEN SOME OTHER TEAMS!

I suppose I am lucky in that I've got the MLB Extra Innings package, so I can watch pretty much any other game that's on (unless it involves the Angels, Dodgers, Giants, A's, Diamondbacks or Rockies -- more on that another time). But that's the rub -- I can only watch another game if it's on. And on the weekend, FOX and ESPN have exclusive windows on Saturday afternoon and Sunday night, respectively, meaning that no other games can be televised when their national games are on.

And get this -- when there actually was some legitimate drama involved (Saturday, Papelbon to face A-Rod with two runners on, two outs and the Sox leading by a run in the eighth inning), an extended rain delay ended the FOX telecast, so when the game resumed, I was treated to an infomercial or some lame movie of the week on my local FOX affiliate.

The two storied franchises hook up for a two-gamer at "the Stadium" (as if there's no other) this week, and guess what? The Wednesday night game is on ESPN! Thursday's game is not nationally televised, however, leading to much strife among members of Red Sox Nation and Yankees ... whatever they're called.

A couple of notes on Sunday night's game -- I flipped it on for about five minutes at about 6:30 p.m., a full 90 minutes after the first pitch, and the game was in the bottom of the third. I don't know if ESPN sneaks in extra commercials, or if the games just drag because every at-bat is so packed with drama, but these Yankees-Red Sox tilts are interminable.

And during the brief span in which I was watching, Jon Miller pointed out that a Red Sox batter had hit a ball to the deepest part of right field at Fenway, then mentioned that his broadcast partner, Joe Morgan, knew all about that part of the park. The camera cut to the booth as Miller related the story of Morgan hitting a drive to right field in the 1975 World Series, only to see Dwight Evans make a great catch and turn it into a double play.

The look on Morgan's face was priceless, and his reaction entirely predictable. Morgan -- who used to play in the major leagues, just ask him -- looked like he'd swallowed a live rat, then pointed out that the Reds went on to win that World Series. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that booth during the next commercial break. Classic stuff.

Book review: Now I Can Die in Peace

We're back from the dirty south, where Mrs. Gopher finished the half-marathon with a personal best time of 2:13:10. That shaves more than nine minutes off her previous PB. Of course, two races is an admittedly small sample size, but she was thrilled with the result, and I remain inspired by her ability and willingness to push herself beyond what she ever thought she could accomplish. May some of that drive rub off on me.

While in Atlanta, I finished reading "Now I Can Die in Peace: How ESPN's Sports Guy Found Salvation, With A Little Help From Nomar, Pedro, Shawshank, And The 2004 Red Sox." I was a little hesitant to dive into the book because I feared that 370 pages of Red Sox-centric writing might just drive me to the brink of mass homicide. But I trusted Bill Simmons. I like his writing on ESPN.com, and I figured he'd find a way to make this tome interesting to all baseball fans, not just those raised on Yaz, Fisk, and Freddy Lynn.

(An aside: I realize that Simmons-bashing has become something of a sport on a variety of popular blogs these days. Whether it's the Deadspin crowd (mostly their commenters, not Leitch himself), Awful Announcing or the various knockoffs of those sites, there's a lot of anti-Simmons angst out there on the net. Curiously, it echoes the backlash against Chuck Klosterman, who's been the target of an insane amount of vitriol from the hipsters at Gawker. Both crowds come across as wannabe journalists/celebrities who are taking out their frustrations on a couple of successful writers whose considerable talents are often masked by their "regular-guy" schtick, leading to criticism that -- when reading between the lines -- basically says, "I wish I'd thought of that first, but since I didn't, I'm gonna knock them down a peg or two so I won't be so lonely down here." But I digress...)

The Simmons book is about what you'd think -- a collection of columns you've probably already read, if you're a fan, but with footnotes added to further explore salient points and digressions. He does a nice job of capturing the pathos of Red Sox Nation pre-2004, which I can particularly relate to as a lifelong fan of the Minnesota Vikings. From what I could glean, 1986 was to Simmons what 1998 was to me, so I could relate to a lot of what he was going through.

My only complaint, and it's a light one at that, is that in the afterword (written in the summer of 2006) he didn't really touch on the much-deserved backlash against Red Sox fans, who quickly became as insufferable as Yankees fans thanks to the East Coast focus of ESPN and the rest of the national sports media. He's acknowledged it in columns, but to make this book stand up against the ravages of time, it's a point he could have explored in just a bit more depth.

Otherwise, a solid read for all fans of baseball, pop culture and breezy sportswriting, and a great way to kick off the 2008 MLB season.

Front-page news

Thanks to Farris Thorne over at FreeForm Fresno for this tip. Among the Breffarve retirement mania, which included some seriously delusional parents who named their newborn twin sons Brett and Favre, this, apparently, is what serves as front-page news in Green Bay these days.

As they say, you can't make it up.