I am a NYY fan and from the beginning have sought to support A-rod. He always struck me emotionally to be a like a large-breed puppy that couldn't get out of the way of his own feet, but he never seems to grow into his feet. One of his Rangers' teammates said after he left "I don't know how we'll be able to remember to run to first base without A-rod telling us what to do from the dugout." My take was that he was a dorky rah-rah guy which is annoying but forgiveable with those numbers. I also appreciated his willingness to discuss going to therapy etc publically.

It was a breath of fresh air, but after awhile, even supporters like me started thinking "Buddy, STFU and play." My God, if you gave johnny damon's unfettered psyche A-rod's physical talent? you'd have the second coming of Lou Gehrig (the greatest baseball player of all time.)

Plus, if being the highest paid athlete of all time in any sport isn't enough for you, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I hope he goes to Boston just for the fun of watching all those freaking dumbass Red Sox fans falling over themselves to explain why it is right to hate him before, but now they love him (as long as he's hitting).

Now, for the Yankees, we're trading Melky Cabrera and Ian Kennedy for Johann Santana. We're also signing Mike Lowell. Then we're surrounding those two with all of our homegrown young talent and veteran expertise and -- jujst going on a limb here -- I think we'll cruise to a 94 win wildcard spot again. Then, the season really begins.

ps- is it pathetic that i LOVE hot stove league? it's so full of promise; like the night before Christmas for three months. Do other markets have a weekly hot stove league TV show like the YES network does?

It's not much of a body of work, but neither of Defending Our Freedom's posts seem to be ironic. I apologize if he was being ironic. But I don't think he was. He has troll written all over his cowardly, fascistic face.

People who have nothing hide should likewise not mind the government coming in and searching their houses whenever they want. People who have nothing to hide should not mind carrying internal passports and be forced to stop and show them and explain their plans whenever the police want as well, right? I guess those framers of the Constitution were moonbats, eh?

I think you and every other jackbooted thug who wants to trample on my civil liberties are whimps with small penises trying to overcompensate. What are you so afraid of? Go hide under your bed and whimper like the 8-year-old girl you are, but don't try to take our rights away from us.

Enough is enough.

While normally I hate to descend to the level of the GOP in these matters, these are desperate times and perhaps desperate measures are called for. Why don't we just start calling them pussies and whimps and chickens endlessly? Why don't we just start (and don't stop) questioning their manhood for being afraid of a bunch of cave-dwelling nutcases with no army and no ability to really threaten us.

How about at every GOP event or debate, people in chicken suits show up. Or ghosts with signs that say "boo! are you scared?" Every word out of a Democrat's mouth should be pointing out that the GOP are 'fraidy cats, girly men standing on a stool screeching at a mouse with an Afghan hat on.

Couldn't every question be framed around "why are you so afraid?" If it is repeated endlessly and dilligently, eventually it will sink in. Democrats mistakenly keep criticizing the "politics of fear" which is too ambiguous and leaves the impression that Democrats are afraid to speak of harsh realities. NO, NO, NO!

We've got to cut to the quick: no more "politics of fear" nuance. "They are pussies" directness is needed. GWB was brought down for being a whimp. Gore. Kerry. Well, maybe it is time to stand up and fight fire with fire. Let's call a spade a spade, and accuse them of being insecure, frightened, chickenshits scared of their own shadows. Use every cliche in the book; they work with the electorate.

... nitpicking about vocabulary is a great way to critique the administration. It's much better than attacking substance. It's also a double treat because the left attacks Bush for not having a good vocabulary and now you're going to attack Condi for having too good of a vocabulary?

I still maintain that for a political scientist or historian, even a bad one like Condi, 'lacuna' is a perfectly normal word, like paradigm.

I know Tim doesn't respond to questions and critcisms like Glen does, but I still don't get the point of making an issue of the word, when there are actual life-and-death issues at stake. Tactically, it is unproductive.

As usual, Tim is too snarky by half. What's the point of highlighting the use of the word lacuna? Did it seem pedantic? Did it seem cliched? Did you not know what the word meant? It is a very very commonly used term in academia, almost to the point of cliche, but not quite. Color me dumb, but I don't get your point.

There is more than enough about which one can criticize this administration, why nitpick this sort of crap? It's as intellectually dishonest as mocking John Edwards's hair or saying Kerry looks French.