did anyone else notice that the Braves left 36 runners on base last night against the Astros? i can only find records for LOB over the course of a 9 inning game. The record according to the baseball almanac for a 9 inning game is 17.

anyway, 36 is a damn big number. HAS to be a record.

bye now.

stat novice am i...that'll teach me to analyze box scores...sheesh

...and say that Michigan / App. St. will not be a beatdown. i honestly can't believe that Michigan scheduled this game. they can't win. if it's a beatdown, then they're picking on the little guy & it certainly won't help them BCS points-wise. if it's close (or, god forbid, they should lose) then it's a mega-tsunami all over Wolverine-land.

App. St. is a good football team...watch out Wolves...

Ok. Boylan is a loose cannon and a bad writer and maybe half-way crazy when it comes to responding to critics. Is it wrong for me to think that this isn't much of a story? When he becomes a liability for Petraeus won't they just replace him and Petraeus can maintain plausible deniability regarding the unhinged blog responses? I mean, what does the readership / editorship here at Salon think will happen as a result of this story, best case? Boylan will probably get replaced as spokesman, as he is far too aggressive & emotionally involved to dispassionately maintain press/public relations for his boss. If the goal of the press that's been devoted to this topic is to highlight the current administration's pettiness, dishonesty, or one of its other negative attributes, then I must say that Col. Boylan is too far down the chain of command, at least in the public consciousness, to be an adequate symbol of the administration & its flaws. I guess my overall point is that, if the story begins and ends with Boylan & there will be no real repercussions beyond him losing his position as spokesman & perhaps some slight embarrassment for Petraeus, then it seems like sorta small potatoes.

1st off, I'd like to point out that "politicization" takes me about three attempts to type correctly.

now...re: this military politicization that folks are howling about. the military itself, like it or not and quite naturally, in my opinion, is an entity that typically aligns itself with the right of the political spectrum. am i wrong about this? it seems self-evident. if this is true, then this story is still not very important news to me. Boylan's political views are predictable. His leaking information to right-leaning bloggers & leaving those of us not politically aligned with the right out in the cold? This is predictable, too. It should be illegal, but how do you catch them doing it? Press leaks are like ninjas - they quickly and quietly do their damage and leave little or no trace. I am as frustrated by them as the next guy or gal, but what do you do to stop them? His bizarre, infantile behavior isn't so predictable, but i still maintain that it isn't much of a story and that it will not resonate beyond Boylan's possible personal career demise. If it could be proven that was acting on Petraeus' instructions - well now, THAT'S a story. But who honestly thinks that's going to happen? Not me...

I have never assumed that the military was above the political fray - I've always seen the military as the implementation tool of political goals.

So scream on about the politicization of the military, but you might want to stop to catch your breath now and again - it's here to stay.

BTW, just so you have some context re: me...I'm a dedicated Salon reader & i lean in the same direction as a lot of the readership here, with a few notable exceptions - like this.

They can believe what they want, but on the job, they need to be completely neutral in order for that safeguard (i.e. their jobs) to be meaningful. That is the point of the flap here.

People are going to do their jobs, to the extent that they can get away with it, in accordance with their principles. i think it's naive to think that someone, on any job, will perform their duties completely dispassionately. i mentioned in my previous post that it should be illegal for someone in Boylan's position to leak information about our military to privileged sources based on their political leanings, but it's almost impossible to prevent leaks from happening. I also mentioned that, for the story to be headline-worthy, Boylan's actions would have to be tied to Petraeus' directives. This won't happen - the PR guy is almost certainly going to be the fall guy in this case.

I don't think that you and i disagree on any fundamental level about the way things should be regarding fair , non-politicized distribution of military information to the press. I'm also not being obtuse, in my estimation, about the matter in general. I just feel that the story is going to begin and end with Boylan, and if that's the case then:

1) i think he's a small potato

and

2) he's already furiously digging his own grave and making himself look like a fool with his aggressive, half-witted, emotionally overwrought responses to Greenwald et al.

well, i barely understood your response to me, but the gist, i believe, was that i am posing as someone who i am not. i believe the thing i am supposed to be is a "Concern Troll". well, just to be clear, i am just a normal guy who has some issues with the press coverage of this topic. not a "Concern Troll". i'll keep my eyes open for "Concern Trolls", though.

you are defined by your irony, and that is infuriating to be subject to as a Salon reader.