Not because he's a bad manager, per se, but he didn't fit the team the Cubs had. Why would you get a manager known for favoring veterans when you'd spent years building one of the most productive farm systems in the majors? Especially when that system was starting to bear fruit when Baker was brought on board?

Cubs management, whether led by Hendry and McPhail or others need to make a choice: are they going to become a big money, big market team of veterans, like the Yankees, or are they going to try to play Billy Beane-style moneyball and seek wins with talented young (and cheap) players? For almost as long as I can remember--and I've followed the Cubs since 1983--the Cubs management can't seem to commit fully to either path. They need to commit, and they need to then find a manager who will work best for the team they want to assemble.

Where do you find the nice, well-groomed soccer fields in most cities? You don'--you find them in the suburbs. There's a reason that the term "soccer mom" is usually preceded by the adjective "suburban."

In South America and Africa, kids gravitate to soccer because they can kick a ball around in the street. We need to find ways to take soccer where most of our great atheletes are. So here is my wish for the U.S. Soccer Federation--start coach and development programs and give equipment to the poor inner-city schools that would probably gratefully accept such help. Work with school districts to put together a soccer season that complements the basketball and football season (which would mean making it a spring sport in most places). At the very least, you help atheletes stay in shape.

And you may also find some kids start to like the idea of being a star in MLS rather than a journeyman in the NBA or NFL.

Warhawk idiots don't all have an R after their names. Kim Jong-Il is a bigger threat than Iran, and not nearly so easy to sweep away as Saddam was. Perry's being irresponsible, and someone with his credentials should know better.

...then they can leave. I'm nearing the end of a three year term on the vestry of my Episcopal Church in Texas, and I'm frankly tired of the entire debate. As far as I'm concerned, the church's mission is to bring people to God, and if that means erring on the side of compassion and reaching out, even ordaining gays and lesbians, then I fail to see the problem.

It's a generational issue. If we given in to the prejudices of American conservatives, and our brothers and sisters in Africa and Asia, then we will, I fear, alienate the young people, gay or straight, or straight, who are now seeking a spiritual home. Should we allow a narrow definition of "purity" to essentially kill the Episcopal Church in the United States?

To me, at least, the answer's a no-brainer: a resounding NO!!

We're talking about a woman who "joked" about poisoning a Supreme Court justice, and didn't get so much as a talking to. Whereas Randi Rhodes was called by the Secret Service after a satirical comedy bit which was misconstrued (I know, because I actually heard the bit in question on its one and only broadcast) as advocating the assassination of President Bush.

I'm not advocating imprisoning or muzzling Coulter, as wonderful as that would be, but shouldn't she be held to the same standards? Especially since this is not the first time she's advocated the death of a federal official.

The article raises an excellent point about multiple-embryo transfers in the United States. Unlike Finland and other countries with state-subsidized health care, a cycle of IVF that includes egg harvesting and "live embryo" transfer (as opposed to a transfer of cryopreserved embryos) runs about $10,000, on average. My wife and I failed on our first attempt with 3 embryos, and our second attempt--paid for by my very generous in-laws--has been successful so far (it was a 2 embryo transfer).

Of course, what might really drive down the cost of IVF is ending restrictions on experimenting with fertilized eggs. By learning in more detail what can identify a particularly promising zygote from one which will not develop, success rates could go up and costs go down, while lessening the need to transfer multiple embryos.

I happened to listen to Zak Space's interview on The Rachel Maddow Show, and to my knowledge never talked about dressing in drag. Rachel often self-deprecatingly talks about her "mannish" looks, but that's about it.

Not that it matters to Ney, who's already proven that he an the truth have at best a tenuous relationship. But if he wants to play this game with liberals who get interviewed on a (gasp!) liberal radio network, perhaps Democrats should hang Rush Limbaugh and all the other conservative talk-radio idiots around Republican candidates' necks.

Having just completed, with my wife, a second cycle of IVF, I would challenge anyone to find a more grueling elective medical procedure. A former Catholic (now Episcopalian) friend of mine tried to explain that Rome's position is based on the fact that, in the Vatican's opinion, children conceived in vitro are not conceived "in love."

What could be more loving that having to endure shots, constant bloodwork, constant sonograms, and the mood swings that come with the hormone cocktail IVF entails? I would argue that couples willing to spend the money and endure the trials of assisted reproduction at least have no doubts that they are ready to be parents.

I am not Catholic, but if I were, I might well leave the Church over this issue. It is yet another sad example of the Pope throwing up unnecessary stumbling blocks to the faith of millions of people.