Cricket is ignored in the US for the same reason a lot of sports that we did not grow up with get ignored: we don't have the time to learn the general rules and specific intricacies of, or to just generally park ourselves in front of the TV for, another sport.

Look, I like soccer. I played soccer in high school. But I waste enough time glued to baseball, basketball (college and pro), hockey and football (college & pro). If I don't have time for a new version of a sport I already like (Arena Football) or even once played (soccer), I sure as hell ain't gonna sink time into cricket, or curling (sorry, King), or beach volleyball or rugby or any of the other pastimes of one corner of the world or another.

This isn't racism, or elitism, or jingoism, it's REALism. I'll check out cricket when mister cricket-loving UN brainiac can discourse intelligently with me on the pros and cons of the DH or the 1-3-1 zone. Otherwise, my brain -- and my daytimer -- is full.

Re the Buckeyes and threes. Had they shot their season average from beyond the stripe, they win. And there wasn't any reason to stop trying them. It wasn't like Florida was doing a great job defending them; many of the Ohio shots were truly good looks. They just weren't falling. Never tell a shooter to stop shooting.

The first thing anybody who considers themselves a liberal, or Democrat or progressive should realize about Fox is that it is NOT a forum for fair debate.

Fair debate is the LAST thing Roger Ailes and his gang of brown shirts want. What they occasionally DO want is the APPEARANCE of a fair debate. It's almost like the white guy who prefaces his race joke by saying, "now, you should realize that some of my best friends are black." "Hey," says Fox, "we give liberals a voice on our channel. Look! There's Colmes! And there's Caddell! See how FAIR and BALANCED we are!"

"Piffle," to quote George Will.

If you're a liberal and you get that call from a Fox producer, know this: they want you on their show for one of only two reasons. Either as a token, or so they can bend you over and drill you good for the amusement of their mouth-breathing viewers. You can take the invite and retain your liberal credentials, sure, but not your self-respect.

"Your message is very strong. The Washington Times also says -- forgive me -- it's your appearance and you're right out of casting central because of your appearance in that. And they even went so far as to say that your hair is presidential. How do you respond when people talk like that?"

Well, at least she APOLOGIZED for quoting the Washington Times . . .

And I know how I would respond when people talked about my hair during a presidential campaign: I'd slap the reporter silly while screaming "We're at war you silly twit and all you care about is my goddam hair?!" The candidate who pulled that off would get my vote, I don't care who they are!

Condi: "Criticism comes with the job. I agree that I think that sometimes the nature of the discourse isn't very civil, but that's life."

Gosh, Condi, you sound surprised that people are mean to you in their criticism. You do realize, though, that you and your Pennsylvania Avenue pals started it by calling me a "coward" and "traitor" and claiming that I "want America to lose" and that I "hate America" and "don't support the troops." You do realize that most good Americans believe that accusations -- nay, outright slurs -- like that are slightly less than civil in themselves, don't you?

Yes, as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, criticism of YOU comes with YOUR job. But YOUR criticism of ME -- your attacks on me -- for exercising my constitutional right to stand up to my governement when I believe it is wrong, is NOT part of your job.

Not only Denial of Service, mentioned by another reader, but tortious interference with a business interest.

The program bosses at ESPN will almost assuredly re-think this dolt's behavior, their response to it and his future with the company once their lawyers explain to them how much the suit filed by The Big Lead's lawyers is going to cost, not just in damages (which might not be high) but in legal defense fees. I'm guessing ESPN's lawyers don't work cheap.

John McCain: "I believe we can succeed, and I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic."

McCain is half right. Unfortunately for him -- and for us -- it's the wrong half. Not only can we not succeed in Iraq, we have in fact alrealy failed, and that failure is catastrophic.

We have failed because we were destined to fail, given the unprecendented incompetence of the folks in charge of planning this misadventure. Putting aside--only for the sake of this particular post--whether going into Iraq in the first place was justified, once it was decided that we were going we at least should have had a realistic plan for reconstruction. Instead, the "plan" was apparently: let the shining light of our democratic example lead the newly unshackled Iraqis to glorious freedom!

We no longer have the physical resources, and may never have had the political resources, to "fix" post-Hussain Iraq. What we must now do is get out of the way; stop making things worse. Give the Iraqi people a chance to see if they can salvage something without our clearly divisive presence. If things continue to go badly, we--as part of a legitimately constituted international effort--can go back to see what help can be provided.