1. If you want to show that black QBs have it harder, you can't just talk about how much unfair criticism they've received; you have to demonstrate that they receive more criticism than white QBs, all else being (roughly) equal. You haven't even tried to do that. We could take almost any QB of any color and create a long list of all the horrible criticism he's received, just as you did with McNabb here, but that doesn't tell us much. Let's see some fair comparisons.

2. You're misrepresenting the argument if you think that disagreeing with McNabb's claim is equivalent to saying that things are "colorblind." Of course racism exists and nobody's colorblind, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's generally true that blacks receive more criticism. There are plenty of us out there who are well aware that he's back and try to give him the benefit of the doubt because of that, simply because we're trying hard not to be racist. Also, you assume that McNabb is correct just because it's so improbable that this is the "one area of society that's colorblind." So do you think that black running backs are judged more harshly than white ones, too? If not, then how could that be the one area of society where we're colorblind? What about black wide receivers, or defensive linemen? Gee, maybe there are some areas of society--of football, even--that are "colorblind" after all (even though that's still the wrong term).

Yes, racism still exists, but race is only one among a million ways that we judge each other, QBs included. And sweeping, unprovable generalizations like McNabb's are laughable oversimplifications. The people who say "Duh" are just as foolish as those who say "Don't be ridiculous."

... is from Tancredo: "We have to remember that we are always just one kooky judge away from actually having homosexual marriage forced on all the rest of us."

Apparently he thinks that if gay marriage is legalized he'll be forced to marry a guy.

How can look at the National League right now and get excited about September baseball? Damn, you seem so bitter about the existence of the wild card--which, in this case, only complicates the excitement--that you refuse to enjoy great races when they're served on a platter.

Also, that lead for today's column was a great parody of Donavan McNabb's comments. I don't know if you were poking fun at yourself, too, given yesterday's column, but in any case I commend you.

That first sentence should have read "How can you look at the National League right now and not get excited about September baseball?"

I should start happy hour later in the day.

An anonymous poster pointed this out a few pages ago, and I'll repeat it: It's all relative. Did you grow up with constant health problems, LW, that kept you in pain and in and out of the hospital? Did you get beat up by your parents? Well, someone who had either of these experiences can look at what you say and be appalled at how ungrateful you are for your luck. And that's just in America, not even considering the privilege of not have to deal with such things as war and mass starvation. These stupid dichotomies that people are throwing around--he's privileged, she's not; she knows hardship and struggle, he doesn't; he's had it easy, she's had it hard; etc.--just make no sense in the real world.

It's great for you to be proud of what you've accomplished, LW, but a little humility would help you, too. You considering his economic background a flaw is no worse than him doing that to you, but apparently he's not the one doing it. You are. I'm glad to see that you recognize this, at least.

Also, here's something to consider: If you marry him and then things go bad and you get divorced, will you have any qualms about taking a big chunk of that money with you?

When I made that comment last week about you being so bitter about the wild card that you can't enjoy a good race, I was only responding to your comment in the letters thread that suggested there's nothing exciting going on in baseball right now. I wasn't complaining that you haven't been writing about baseball in the column. In fact, you can count me with those who think that you should write about whatever interests you, and when people complain that you should be writing about some other sport, ignore them.

I just wanted to point out that although the wildcard may be a net loss for the excitement of September playoff races, it still provides for some good fun. Right now, for instance: Athough the wildcard has taken all the steam out of AL East race, what's been going on in the NL the past couple of weeks has been pretty exciting, and in fact the wildcard has made it even more exciting because without it there wouldn't be much to watch for in this last week of the season unless one of the division leaders takes a nosedive. But with it, that race between the Phillies, Padres and Rockies for the wildcard is going to a thriller. You may not be excited by this, and that's cool, but that's not baseball's problem.

Adding to what King said: It's not only the umpire's job (in addition to making calls) to remain neutral and disinterested, but it's also his job to maintain order and control over what happens on the field. The main reason he's there, and what he gets paid for, is to keep control over the game. That's why umps can't behave like the players do, and it's a completely sound justification for the double standard. Baiting a player into an argument, not to mention calling him a piece of shit, isn't just bad behavior while on the job, it's a failure to do the job itself. If Winters did that, he should be fired.