Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Published Letters: 11 Editor's Choice: 5
Given that there are four umpires in postseason play, is there a reason that umpiring duties can't be divided up directionally rather than by bases? I.e., the ump on the right field line is responsible for calling plays on the first base side of second when the play blocks the view of the umpire behind second, the third base ump for plays on the other side in the same situation, etc.
I know it wouldn't work in regular season play, and God knows Scooter the Talking Baseball could never explain vector-based umpiring to us, the morons at home. But having umps call only plays they actually see seems like a modest first step before resorting to something as foul as "instant" replay.
And, yes, I know this will never happen.
Contrary to this piece's subtitle, actually, I *can* dismiss Maureen Dowd--precisely because she is inflammatory and she is generally satisfied with being exclusively that. Traister says, "Dowd has clearly touched a nerve. And you only touch a nerve by telling a truth."
Well, pardon me, but what kind of bullshit is that? Sometimes you touch a nerve because the flesh has been scraped off by having the same old, rusty untruth scraped over it again and again. For instance, "Sex and the City" sociology jangles my nerves not because it's true, but because I'm so appalled at the notion of having complicated lives reduced to anything so facile that even Sarah Jessica Parker can narrate it.
When Salon runs "the trouble with feminism" (or "the trouble with men", or "the trouble with guys who don't wanna date me") pieces like this, I have to remind myself that this is the same magazine where Joan Walsh printed her "Actually, I do want to run the world, and what of it?" column in the wake of the NYT Magazine's piece on women opting out of careers. This magazine is capable of seeing through trend pieces and the memoirs of a narrow stratum of women. So how'd this pointless assemblage of quotations and would-be ahas get through again?
Jeffrey, thanks for the condescension, but the issue is not taking minors across state lines. (Last I checked, abortion clinics were kinda down on kidnapping.) It's about what happens when they go on their own. Those in states with more restrictive notification laws lose the option to go another state. Adding delays, making doctors adhere to notification standards that their own state doesn't require them to--these are additional obstacles to what is a legal procedure.
As for the underground railroad analogy: it's more the notion of leaving a state where something is criminalized for one where it is legalized. I don't think the words "the new slavery" appeared in the original piece. But I have to ask: is that the standard? Does something really have to be as bad as a centuries-long atrocity in order for us to have a right to object? Please, just let us know what the threshold is.
Is it really that homophobic for her to hope her husband doesn't become gay? Surely you can see the nonbigoted reasons to hope one's spouse doesn't change teams midmarriage . . .
Maybe it's because I was 10 and impressionable when he said it, but I can't seem to scrub my memory clean of Dick Button's terrible simile for the Katarina Witt-Debi Thomas Dueling Carmens drama. In his wrap-up, he said it hung around "like an overweight dinner guest who refused to leave."
He's going to have to do at least another 20 years of solid, pain-free commentary to atone for that.
"Take Richard Dawkins, for example. He did a couple of religious programs that I was fortunate enough to miss."
Wow, that's some impressive intellectual honesty there. I hope all of her research adheres to that high standard.
Why am I supposed to respect this person's opinion?
I don't think I'd enjoy watching a soccer game where either
a. offensive players parked in front of the goal waiting for a pass so they could make a nearly unsaveable goal
or
b. to prevent a., defensive players huddled in front of the goal alongside the opposing offensive players.
The offside rule keeps things moving. Maybe King's proposed modification--a player can go offisides, but can't be brought offsides--wouldn't have the same dampening effect. But you know what? I like that offensive players have to keep their heads in the game and their eyes on everyone's field position. It plays into one of my favorite aspects of soccer: how much of the in-game play is directed by the players rather than the coaches.
that I added the Neifi Index to the wikipedia article. This is clearly King's greatest contribution to sports commentary, a distinction by which I intend no diminution of the rest of his oeuvre.
. . . is one it just can't help: interrogation scenes in crime dramas make me think of Homicide, particularly of the scenes with Andre Braugher's Pembleton in "the box". And, well, very few TV shows are going to measure up to that, particularly since Homicide managed to keep shy of the One Genius Cop trope that makes many series ( Closer, L&O: CI, Criminal Minds) so damn annoying to watch. As long as Homicide is on Sleuth TV and DVD, I have no reason to tune in to The Closer.
= 3,333.33 per knuckle.
Salon announces subscription rates will be going up to support independent reporting and the intelligent commentary we all love . . . and then hires Camille Paglia again. Couldn't you have just set the money on fire? You'd have at least gotten an interesting Video Dog entry out of it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
