sounds like the Republican National Convention

sounds like the Republican National Convention

not 23-21. Made a huge difference in how the last minute played out.

As I read this article, which compressed the first 5 years of the Bush Administration into seven pages, I was overcome by one very pessimistic conclusion. The marginalizing and discrediting of science and objective journalism is the worst damage that this administration has wrought on the country. We can recover from wars, and somehow we can perhaps get the nation's fiscal affairs in order, future presidents can reestablish diplomacy and tolerance for respectful dissent. But the damage to empiricism and objectivity will remain long after Bush returns to Crawford. Perhaps the biggest problem we will face in the post-Bush years is that a polarized America no longer even agrees on what reality is. The cynicism that people both left and right feel toward the press is alarming, and the hostility of the right wing to science is downright disturbing. I have no idea how we can recover from the damage to our collective intellect.

I tried to listen the the third Mets-Dodgers game with the TV sound off and the radio on, but unfortunately that's no longer a feasible option. Thanks to the FCC and it's campaign agains athletes potentiall uttering the word "fuck" into an open mic, the TV is on 7 second delay, so the radio audio is so badly out of sync with the TV it's virtually impossible to watch that way. So instead of getting to hear Gary Cohen and Howie Rose on WFAN in New York, I was stuck with Brenneman and Lyons. If it was possible, I'd be listening to 'FAN for all the Mets games because Rose and Cohen are guys who grew up as Mets fans in the '60s, and they are professionals who respect the team and the game (but not in that pompous George Will sort of way. In a fun way, they way you enjoy the game with your buddies who've been fans of your team since childhood).

And with regard to the man in the crowd with the vision problem Brenneman and Lyons made fun of, how many of us were cringing while we listened to the announcers make jackasses of themselves? The entire time, I kept thinking to myself, "I'll bet that poor guy has a problem with his vision." And then as the announcers kept beating that joke to death, I kept wishing the director would turn away from the shot of the guy in the stands. (and one more thing -- Brennemans laugh has got to be the most annoying sound on earth...)

As a Mets fan, I've been hearing all year about the "presence" LoDuca brings to the squad. I agree he's been an important acquisition, but I think a it's been the presence of his .318 batting average more than anything else.

Every time I see or hear some sportswriter in high dudgeon over Bonds' steroid use, it makes me wish our nation's sportswriters would all be reassigned to the White House beat. Why does Barry Bonds, an entertainer who plays a game for god's sake, get rougher treatment from the press than our commander in chief and his war on "terra?" In 21st century America, I just find it hard to get all worked up over the sins of Barry Bonds. Perspective, people. Perspective.

"Stop me before I spend again!!"

After Romo botched the snap on the winning field goal, all I could think about was the scene in North Dallas Forty when the QB blows the chance for a last-second tie by botching the snap on the extra point.

Normally I don't get worked up over HOF arguments either. Like King, I'm pretty inclusive in who I think should get in. I'd like to see Gossage get in, I thought Ryne Sandberg was deserving. I even think Steve Garvey should be in. But what gets me about McGwire is that it gives self-important sportwriters another oppotunity to be sanctimonious blowhards. The entire steroids issue is blown way out of proportion by writers who know nothing about science. I don't know physiology either, but I believe that without empirical studies on the effects of steroids on baseball performance, I just can't say exactly what steroid use means to the number of HRs McGwire or Bonds or anyone would have hit. But why should science get in the way of a good opportunity to pontificate about the lost innocence of The Game?

The older sportswriters are the worst, with their bluster self-righteousness. Weren't these guys in baseball clubhouses in the 60s and 70s when half the guys were using speed? Why did these writers think players were drinking coffee before day games in St. Louis when the artifical turf was 130 degrees? There's as much evidence that Willie Mays was using speed as there is that Mark McGwire was using steroids, but the old sportswriters pine for the innocent days of the Say Hey Kid. Give me a break.

A lot of fans as well as sportswriters seem to want baseball to be a boy's game played by innocent men of heroic character. It isn't. It never was. It never will be. It's played by men who have all the strengths and weaknesses of character that any of us have. Did Mark McGwire "cheat?" Not by baseball's rules pre-2005. And during his era, when maybe half the guys were using steroids, he was faraway the best HR hitter. He'd have my vote.