Looking this up, it's not clear whether the winning Boston team in 1903 was the Pilgrims (MIStupid.com), the Americans (Encarta) or the Red Sox (ESPN.) But, the point is, Boston won -- winning isn't evenly distributed among the teams. Boston's won 7 times, the Red Sox 5 (by Encarta's count.) Another team has won 26 times, and the other teams in the same city 8. Furthermore, as the Braves left for Atlanta and the Dodgers for San Diego, the Athletics were in Philadelphia until 1954. While for the last 52 years Philadelphians have only had one local choice, their city did win the World Series 5 times with the Athletics.

So, if we take Boston, the Philadelphia Athletics, and any baseball cities that happen to fall in between, we account for 46 of the 102 world, um, seriesses.

If you allocate the 54 (less the strikes in 1904 and 1994) left evenly among the 47 remaining states, you'll get about one per. But, a district took it once, in 1924, and foreigners took it in 1992 and 1993. And, there's more lumpiness. Pittsburgh -- another Pennsylvania city -- the post-Brooklyn Dodgers, the Cincinnati Reds and the Detroit Tigers each won another 5 times, and St. Louis 9, leaving only 22 games to spread among however many teams are left.

So, the Phillies aren't unlucky. They've just never been dominant.

That's a weird way to start an article. Alice in Chains may not be relevant in the Bauer sense, but I don't know what that sense is. Pearl Jam, though, just had like an 8-page article in Entertainment Weekly.

Less like Tom Tomorrow, more like Carol Lay. I don't know anything about her personally, but having followed her work published in Salon, I'm guessing that she went through a messy, acrimonious divorce, went through a few lovers of various genders and now sits around stewing in her anger and spewing out crap.

Dan Perkins is a frickin' genius.

The K Chronicles is typically somewhat more positive than Way Lay. He gets angry at some things, but he seems to be able to process it. The dead hippie list is just out of character for him -- maybe it's something he came up with at a party and had to fall back on when this week's idea didn't pan out.

I can't say it's really welcome.

Ion

Until now, I'd only heard Ann Coulter parrot those sources, so I was suprised when my girlfriend's boss referred to them in Forbes. The rebuttal was worse! As if this scary, robot-loving career woman in the original piece had been made flesh, and warned you that unless you were up for constantly proving yourself to your spouse, you were bound for cuckoldry, general misery and divorce.

Really, I was glad to see the Traister piece. It hangs together much better.

If I wanted to illustrate that the Coastal Liberal Elite was dismissive and disparaging toward Christians (who, after all, have an obligation to prosyletize), this would be a great tool. You're saying overweight B-Movie actors shouldn't be spreading the word of God? That's going to be really convincing to people who are -- or were, really -- glad there's a chronic ne'er-do-well in office because he can admit to be appointed by God.

There's nothing wrong with a preacher having starred in biodome. And, actually? Those Long Island kids may have different plans for the evening than video games. Maybe they're not running the school paper and studying for the SATs like your friends, but maybe they are.

This is really tendentious, condescending writing. Stephen Baldwin may be a bad person doing bad things, but most of the attacks on him and his flock were petty and gratuitous.

Now, what should she say about evolution?

"Don't you think you're wrong?"

"Aren't you sorry about being wrong?"

So, the subject is maybe not someone I'd encourage anyone to date. But, the interviewer seems incredibly antagonistic. I am speaking as someone who really liked 'My Life's in Turnaround,' though.

You know, when this happened to Senator Kerry, the whole media fell in line. It was insane. And I haven't noticed a lot of remorse around how easily led they are. I don't have a solution to Sparky's -- or really the country's -- problem here, but it's big.

Isn't there some rule that you shouldn't mention problems until you have a solution? I thought it was a fundamental tenet of American culture.

I made the mistake of reading the other letters, and I have one thing to add. Remember after 9/11? Or after 9/15 or 9/16, whenever it was that the President thought it was safe enough to crawl out of his spider hole and give some sort of a speech? He was still the completely unfit standard bearer for corruption that he had been, except then it was totally okeh to stifle dissent.

This Modern World has to keep making the point that the media is manipulated at the convenience of the powerful until that point sticks. It's nice to have a cartoon to look to when you start to feel that it's you that's insane, and to know that one person agrees with you.

So, in the Slog comments regarding Mr. Savage's response to this piece, Gully Foyle suggests Probably a convoluted sort of payback over the Garrison Keillor imbroglio

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/04/dont_leave_me_debra_dickerson#c687725

Well, go ahead and read what Mr. Savage said about Mr. Keillor. And see if you can't hear him yelling, "Get an empathic writer from the pool. Have her sympathize with Savage's readers and move on from the column. I want him hurting!"

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/fuck_garrison_keillor

I certainly can.

Or, we could look for more highly paid, better trained, more competent screeners.

But maybe the blatant sexual reference is why some papers are withholding it?

They're even touring.

http://www.thetubes.com/shows.htm

And, you know what? Onstage probably is the best place in a club to see a show. I'm getting me a band.