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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

will be the first.

Buffalonian: a lot of teams have "pitching prospect" + "centerfielder". Why would the Twins take that for Santana? What if the Red Sox offered, say, Ellsbury + Buchholz? Like King says, it would have to be more than that. Also, the Twins would have to be willing to wave farewell to their fan base for 2008.

In the bigger picture, it's always amusing how, every winter, the typical Yankees fan starts treating the rest of the league like their farm system. Usually this involves completely ludicrous trade possibilities ("We'll trade Robinson Cano for Prince Fielder!") that nobody outside the Five Boroughs thinks are even moderately realistic. I really think the Yankees would be better off following the 90s model, and not the model of the 80s which they have reverted to in recent years. Putting together an expensive all-star team every year is a high-risk strategy for the Yankees, and it hasn't had a lot of success. For every Reggie Jackson the Yankees bring in there are two high-priced failures. Getting rid of ARod is the smartest thing the Yankees have done in years. If you wait a year, you'll definitely get Santana because nobody would be able to match your numbers when he becomes a free agent.

Nulla: if you don't want to read Schilling's blog, don't read it! If you don't want to hear about it, think about us: we certainly don't want to hear about how you don't want to hear about it. That topic is completely uninteresting for everybody.

As to the ARod situation: the Red Sox have won two World Series without him. I don't think he's a good value for the price. But I think the Angels have a far greater need for his bat than the Sox do, so he'll end up there.