That's the thing with confidence. Being confident doesn't simply mean you're going to win, but you're not going to be a champion without it. I can't believe there's ever been a champion who really didn't think he/she was exceptionally good. To use somebody else's example: If the pitcher and the hitter are both really confident, then the outcome is up to other factors. But if one of them thinks "Oh, my god, that other guy is so good, I'm gonna get smoked," then he's probably gonna get smoked, no matter how talented he is.

Remember LeBron in the playoffs? His talent was a constant, but what varied was how aggressively he played, and aggressive play requires confidence. Obviously I'm only guessing, but I'd bet that the more confidence LeBron played with, the more likely the Cavs were to win.

I know it's not easy to let it all hang out, but there's exactly one way to clear this up. Say this to him, and you can word it however you like:

"I like you. Will you go out with me?"

If he says no, then ask: "Out of curiosity, are you gay or straight?"

This will get you all the information you'll ever get out of him.

Aren't these disabled ex-players getting Social Security benefits? That's one of the purposes of S.S., right? They may deserve something from the players' union or the NFL, as well, but I hope they're getting something.

This is a good illustration of why society (through government) needs to provide for people who can't work. It's not really the NFL's fault that these players got physically destroyed, just as (addressing someone else's letter) it's not really the hospital's fault that the nurses may get back and joint problems from a lifetime of work. And anyway it's inefficient and ineffective to try to get employers to provide for those who no longer work for them (except when the employer actually did wrong). That should be the responsiblity of our country as a whole. If Social Security isn't getting that job done, then we need to beef it up.

It's true the that NFL is a Faustian bargain overall, and I don't mean to diminish the problem the NFL has with the damage done to its players, but I might reasonably dream of having had the career of, say, Jerry Rice, or Ronnie Lott. Generally speaking, the amount of physical damage (hits, hyper-bodybuilding, drugs, etc.) sustained by players such as lineman and running backs seems to be on a different level from that of receivers and defensive backs, so let's not assume that every former player is living in agony. (I'm ignoring the damn kickers.)

I respect Helen Thomas, and I'll grant that she may be misquoting herself, but ""Mr. President, why don't you respect the wall between church and state?" That's not an example of an honest, truth-seeking question, but of a loaded "gotcha" question that assumes what it's trying to investigate. She could have asked plenty of fairer and more useful questions about how the Faith-Based Initiatives office fails to square with the tradition of church/state separation. Thomas is usually tough and smart, but letting dumb questions like this slip out makes it awfully easy for right-wingers call her a nut.

Is President Bush respecting a wall between church and state? No. That's an opinion, and it happens to be a very sound one, but it's not a fact, so a reporter can't just assume the truth of it and then ask why it's so. It's like asking "Why don't you represent the interests of the people?" It's unanswerable because he's not going to agree with the (subjective) assumption. Granted, W. would never give a reasonable answer to any question on this subject, but that's not a good excuse for not asking a fact-based question that simply gets at what the hell an office that promotes religion is doing in the White House.

Like I said, maybe Thomas didn't use the exact wording she used in this interview, but questions like this keep getting used by the goddamn Bernie Goldbergs of the world as evidence that the press is biased, and when the question actually is biased, people are more likely to believe him.

So noted. I think Thomas is great and I'll be happy to assume that she was just conveying the gist of what she'd said. I didn't intend to be nitpicky, but distinctions like that are often the difference between good journalism and bad, and I think it's immeasurably important (as I think everyone here does) for reporters to get this stuff right.

I appreciate the good reporting, but a little commentary would be nice, too. This sounds to me like an idea that's sure to fail and produce some boring football on the way, but stop making me think for myself.

"Why does Jeanne Zelasko get to be snotty about Barry Bonds? But let me not be sexist; why do so many tedious unworthy men get to be snotty about Barry Bonds?"

Wait a minute--Who the hell do you have to be in order to be snotty about Barry Bonds, Joan? I wasn't aware that one has to be judged worthy and non-tedious first.

I'll answer your question, and it's the same reason so many tedious unworthy men get to be snotty about George W. Bush, or anyone else, for that matter: Because the only relevant question is whether or not he deserves criticism, which has nothing to do with the "worthiness" of the critic. That's just changing the subject. I don't care how stupid Zelasko is, or even how stupid I am--if Bonds deserves snottiness, then we have every right to be snotty about him.

You're free to like Bonds if you care to--have your fun--but the effort to insult Bonds' critics and the whiny complaint that everybody's ganging up on poor Barry are getting embarrassing. Pondside (upthread) made a great point in comparing the tactics of Bonds defenders to those of Cheney defenders.