Why aren't Americans better at, say, rugby? Not enough people participate.

Why aren't Americans better at the marathon? Too many people participate?

This is idiotic. I'm sorry Mr. McClelland's fantasy about American sports dominance is ruined by the participation of millions of people actually enjoying amateur sports.

I know a lot of people who run. I don't know any who don't take pride in setting personal bests. And yes, for some people a 4 1/2 hour marathon is an achievement.

I an country where obesity is becoming a growing problem even among children, I'm disheartened to see Salon publishing an article critical of ordinary people who have gone to great lengths to get themselves in shape, even when they know that they'll never be world-class.

we don't hear enough about the guy! It's entirely appropriate that discussion of an article about women in umpiring should be hijacked for the sole purpose of discussing Glenn Sacks!

(Somebody remind me who Glenn Sacks is? On second thought, maybe not. I really don't care.)

It's less worse news. It's still bad news. And it doesn't make the war correct.

It's sad to see people searching oh-so-desperately for some, any justification for the war. If casualties were to completely stop tomorrow, the war was still the wrong decision.

Can we have some discussion about the war along the lines of what its alleged justification was? When we know the justification was wrong and when we know it was built on a pack of lies, then the war was always the wrong thing to do.

A lot of war critics have fallen into the trap of thinking that the war was a bad idea because "it's not going well". That's like opposing rape because "it's not going well". The reason to oppose rape is because it is morally wrong, and the reason to oppose invading a non-threatening country halfway around the world is because it is wrong.

Americans have realized that the basic issue of the war was bogus. We went to war not because it was necessary but because the war cheerleaders wanted to go to war. Why did they want to go to war? We'll never know, but that's a question for them to answer. Since they've never made any attempt to do so in an honest fashion, the answer may be lost to history.

Has Fred Hiatt ever praised a Republican for joining with Democrats to defeat a bill that the base of the Republican party wanted?

(BTW: thread hijackers? Please go away. You know who you are.)

In the article, it is stated that the Smart car starts at $11,600. Yet a letter by "Andrew" is given a star as 'Editor's Choice', apparently for being a superior letter. In Andrew's letter, he complains that Smart cars are too expensive, because he has a vague recollection that, when he was in Canada, he saw them for sale at the price if $18,000 Canadian.

How is this a superior letter? Shouldn't overstating the cost by more than 50% count against it? Or are the editors so wedded to the formula of "conflicting opinions" that they are more focused on having opinions that differ than on whether the letters have any relevance to the original article?

I will say this: given the generally sloppy standards in journalism these days, I'm guessing the editor in question has a bright future ahead of him. Preferring sensation over facts seems to be the formula for journalism these days.

casual observer says:

Second, in citing the polling data (above), Greenwald has reversed himself completely on what polling data mean. In every previous use of polling data that I can remember, Greenwald has used polls to contrast the differences between what media figures are putting forth and what the public actually believes. Here, however, the polling data disagree--contradict--what Greenwald claims. His response to to use a bit of logical gymnastics, and claim that the people hold this view only because they have been tricked by the media. This is a weak argument. So now, by implication, both the media and the public are wrong.

Actually, Greenwald typically puts forward polling data to rebut the claims of politicians and the media about what the public think. Off the top of my head, a hypothetical example of this would be when Beltway Pundit says "nobody thinks waterboarding is torture", Glenn would find a poll that says exactly the opposite that, in this hypothetical poll, 56% of the public think waterboarding is torture. What Glenn is then doing is rebutting the truth claim made about what the public thinks.

In the current situation, Glenn is not claiming that the public thinks Giuliani is not moderate. Glenn is saying that he, Glenn Greenwald, thinks Giuliani is not moderate.

You do understand the distinction, yes?

As an aside, I note that "moderate" in today's political discourse means "pro-choice Republican" or "pro-war Democrat".

Left-wingers in Tennessee were joyous in 1963 when JFK was shot?

C'mon, if you're going to make up outrageous fabrications like that, at least do so non-anonymously, so we can publicly praise you for your chutzpah.

They already have "Bonds" written on all the uniforms, courtesy of Chico.