"Tharoor's distaste for what he thinks of as the simple-minded sport of baseball doesn't prove that he's a fool."

No. No. No. The fact that Tharoor can state that a game about which he knows very little is simple-minded in comparison to a sport about which he knows a great deal does prove that he is a fool.

Baseball and cricket are related, but different. Arguing that one is more complex than another is like arguing over the relative complexity of lemonade vs. limeade.

Most games are simple in their basics. I am not a NASCAR fan, but I don't think that all there is to it is to drive fast. I presume that there are tactics and strategies and complications which are unapparent to my untrained eye. I don't watch it, but I don't have to denigrate it.

I am sick of so many cricket fans denigrating baseball out of ignorance. I am a huge fan of both sports. I have never met an open minded baseball fan who didn't take to cricket when taken to a match and walked through the game. Likewise, many of my friends who were raised on cricket have become avid baseball fans as they learn more about the strategies/tactics. The games are too similar in their essence to warrant competition. It is really the narcissism of small differences.

RE: the question, "where exactly does one go in this country to hear the complaints of "'so many cricket fans.'"

First of all, I didn't say anything about cricket fans in this country. I said I was sick of cricket fans denigrating baseball. As a sports-loving American who has lived and travels extensively around the erstwhile British empire, I find myself in the baseball/cricket or rugby/aussie/soccer/football discussion more than a little.

that said, there are lots of cricket fans here. Go to any research university in this country (or I suspect technology firm in silicon valley) and you'll find tons of skinny south asian guys with a cricket bat and a tennis ball playing some improvised game somewhere on campus. Go to a park in Brooklyn on a Saturday or Sunday and you'll find hundreds of west indians and south asians playing.

Historically speaking (an incidentally I am an academic historian who writes on the history of imperial sport), Americans did play cricket. In fact, the first international 'test' match was between the US & England. The difference was that cricketers in the US sought to maintain the rigid class distinctions of Victorian cricket while promoters of baseball in a shrewd marketing move encouraged everyone to play: workers, children, high school students, etc. Like the promoters of Aussie rules, they also latched on to the fact that nationalism sells tickets and very early made a concerted effort to promote the game as inherently "American" and tougher than its English counterpart. Even then, one of the two main versions of baseball (the so-called "Massachusettes game") had many features which we associate with cricket, most importantly the absence of foul territory.

Cricket is glorious in part because it takes all day. I remember once stepping into the club house during an Australia v. Northampton match, watching the FA Cup final in its entirety, then heading back out to enjoy the rest of the afternoon's cricket. Now, that was a good day of spectating.

Just maybe she was joking. You know, being ironic. Maybe?

King, I did think of you as soon as Oden picked up the second foul. I know this is your hobby horse and you'll ride it as you see fit, but not a single world about the Rutgers Scarlet Knights?

They've now knocked off 'unbeatable' Duke and held 'unstoppable' Sylvia Fowles to 5 points. And next, they're going to show Candace Parker that the national championship is not TN's by divine right.

C. Vivian's time has come and when they repeat next year, it won't be a surprise.

Can't someone please just think about all the impressionable youths who will be encouraged to drop out of college early to pursue their dreams if Greg Oden doesn't stay in school?

You blithely encourage to test himself against men when instead he could spend a few more years drinking coors light out of plastic cups at fraternity keggers while not attending class and getting an education by osmosis.

For God's sake, he's only 19! He's not ready for the rigors of the NBA lifestyle. He needs to be protected. Of course, if he were a foot shorter, he might be beginning his second tour of duty in Sadr City by the age of 19, but that is neither here nor there.

Anyone who was awake in NYC during the Giuliani years knows that he has an authoritarian streak a mile wide. However, unlike Bush who just seems clueless, Giuliani is also mean, vindictive and personal. He's a meglomaniac of the first order and -- please don't take this as hyperbole -- a clear and present danger to the Republic and the Constitution.

Don't let the fact that he has gay friends or that he's from NY or that he isn't a Bible-thumper fool you. He is in no way, shape or form a moderate. He is not the lesser of any two evils. Honestly, the Republic would be in better hands if Newt were president.