The Hall of Fame will never even approach legitimacy until they elect Roger Maris.

Roger Maris?

The guy with the .260 career batting average?

The guy with 275 home runs?

The guy with 851 RBI? Albert Pujols has more than that, and he's still only 27.

The guy who hit .217/.298/.368 in the postseason?

If you're opening a Hall of Not Bad, he's worthy of consideration, along with Eric Davis and Jay Buhner. But the Hall of Fame? Hardly.

By the way, I'd kick out these guys:

Robin Roberts 268-245 Mediocre, but he did it for a long time.

Don Drysdale 209-166 He's in because he was a teammate of Sandy Koufax. Drysdale averaged a 14-11 record over his career. Oooh. How intimidating!

Sandy Koufax - 165-87 Four incredible seasons, 2 pretty good seasons, and 6 horrible seasons. If we're kicking out 300 game winners, then Koufax gets kicked out for not sticking around long enough to prove the last four seasons weren't a fluke. The Hall isn't just about being good, or even great. It's about achieving a high level of performance over an entire career.

before Rupert Murdoch owns all of the media. Then it will be Fair and Balanced everywhere, all of the time.

So the three or four people who own and like Macs are losing their "in" with the company and Farhad Manjoo is all over the story.

How does this affect the other 95% of us who use real computers?

I think it's shameful her being pregnant at that age, that's not how God would want it.

As a mere mortal, I have no idea what God would want. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that He, being God, would be fully capable of preventing 16 year old girls from becoming pregnant if that's not how He would want it.

You can do stuff like that if you're God.

But He didn't, did He?

Does the pain a fetus suffers as part of a partial-birth abortion constitute torture?

Given that "partial-birth abortion" has been outlawed, that question is now moot, isn't it?

Doing the same for the death penalty would put an end to these "is killing people torture?" questions, as well.

That's understandable but don't use it as an excuse to bash the classy Phins and ignore the brash bully, pisshead arrogant Patsies. Who - in a head to head- would get ground under by the Phins' run gam trio.

Given the relative size of linemen in 1972 vs today, I think the 2007 Patriots would probably leave the 1972 Dolphins unable to walk, let alone advance the ball.

This one would be one ugly game.

He's been ignoring the Constitution for years, so why should he start heeding it next January?

Iowa is of no concern to him because he has no plans to leave office.

Then I can stop reading paranoid sentences such as these:

"Iowa is of no concern to him because he has no plans to leave office." !!!

There's no paranoia to it; it's simply a hypothetical thought. I think asking why everyone suddenly expects him to obey the Constitution in January 2009 is a reasonable query, given that he has had no regard for the document during the past seven years and is on record has having referred to it as a "Goddam piece of paper."

Do I think he'd be able to govern if he refused to leave office? Why not? The Democrats in Congress haven't offered any resistance to him and the Supreme Court seems to be in his pocket. All he has to do is come up with some sort of "national emergency" to justify not leaving.

Do I think this will actually happen? No, and several of my friends have suggested that the citizens would engage in armed revolt if he attempted to retain office. It would almost be worth it to see if such a revolt would take place, given that most of the loons with guns are already in Bush's camp.

Paranoia? No, as I expect he will leave office. Still, given all that this administration has done, it doesn't hurt to at least consider the possibility.

...he supports major government intrusion into our lives.

He wants the government to tell us who we can and cannot marry. He wants the government to force women to bear children they do not want.

And if he's like George W. Bush, he wants the government to keep spying on us. And torturing people. And spending money recklessly with no attempt to repay it.

Minimal government and fiscal responsibility = conservative. Lots and lots and lots of government =

liberal. At least it did when I was taking political science classes in college.

...when I saw him in When Harry Met Sally.

That orgasm bit in the diner really busted me up.

...with John Edwards climbing up from 15 percent to 20 percent, a new high for him in Gallup's national polling.

That's a pretty amazing performance, given that his name is never mentioned in the national media. If all you do is read newspapers, read magazines and watch television, you'd never even know John Edwards was running for president.

Just another sad commentary on our so-called "liberal" media.

...compared to the miserable 5.2% (28 votes) that Harold Baines received.

In a career of comparable length to that of Raines, Baines had 261 more hits. He drove in 648 more runs and he hit 214 more home runs, all while posting a batting average that was just five points lower than Tim Raines (.289 vs. .294.) Baines had a slightly higher OPS, as well (.821 vs. .810.)

And how many players who are currently eligible for the Hall of Fame have more hits than Harold Baines?

None.

I'll agree that Tim Raines deserved more than 24% of the vote. But 5.2% for Harold Baines is nothing short of a disgrace.

...but it's better than not being treated at all.

The media continue to pretend that John Edwards simply doesn't exist.