Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 204 Editor's Choice: 44
-
It would have been better if the case were never brought
[Read the article: Who would Antonin Scalia torture?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obviously, to the individual plaintiffs there is literally nothing to lose, but the idea of asking this particular Supreme Court to definitively answer a question about the death penalty is a bit like asking Dick Cheney his opinion about the Scooter Libby prosecution, or asking Ryan Seacrest if he thinks American Idol is helpful to his career. You know the answer, and you're going to disagree with it.
Anyone who thinks it doesn't matter who is President should keep a picture of Sam Alito on their mirror.
-
@sagcat
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I couldn't agree more. The only decent New Year's Day game was the Capital One Bowl between Michigan and Florida, which had all the good things college football can be. Is anyone noting the time of the "International Bowl" on their TV viewing calendar? By setting up the championship game, the PTB have essentially made the New Year's games into just another day of football, and compared to an exciting and interesting hockey game, they couldn't compete. I loved watching the snow fall on the rink, it really did bring back memories of skating outdoors as a child.
The difficulty with some of the more obvious cities for outdoor hockey is the lack of outdoor stadia in Detroit, Toronto (the retractable roof for the Rogers Centre is sealed shut for the winter) or Montreal. I believe the whole idea of this came from a college hockey game at Spartan Stadium in East Lansing, though, between Michigan State and Michigan Tech (may have the opponent wrong, but no matter). So why not the Wings and the Blackhawks there next year?
-
Fans' Culpability
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, to Kevred, it's disingenuous to say that there is some difference between watching the games on TV and going to the games in terms of participating in the fraud. Baseball gets paid money for ratings exactly the same way it gets money for tickets. Even watching the highlights on ESPN makes baseball money; they are paid rights fees for the clips that are shown and the ratings for SportsCenter and Baseball Tonight are factored into the price for those clips. So you can't run and hide behind "I didn't pay them directly." You paid them indirectly.
But I disagree that the fans are culpable at all. Rather the fans are, as I've written here before, the victims of this fraud that was perpetrated by MLB, the people who were selling the tickets, the merchandise and the broadcasting rights (the networks were, however, wilful co-conspirators--you must remember the cute little "it's just andro and it's legal under the CLB" stories about McGwire in 1998). But we fans were only offered one kind of baseball product during the whole steroid era, a product that was marketed as real baseball and was instead adulterated baseball. It's not a consumer's obligation to go out and test the frigging players' bloodstreams. They wanted our money, they promised a legitimate product and they didn't deliver. I can pretty much prove how much I spent on tickets for those particular years; I'll be happy to accept the refund.
-
@SansPrejudice
[Read the article: Stay classy, John Edwards ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For all you know, Elizabeth Edwards wrote the script for that as well. This is a creature who is not manly enough to stand by himself and do anything.
Come again? First of all, drop the manliness test. This is 2008. Second, if there's a candidate in the pack whose spouse is being used to clean up that candidate's messes, I don't think it's John Edwards.
-
Let the Hall of Fame Votes Rot
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Baseball Hall of Fame takes itself way too seriously. The BBWA writers who vote for the Hall of Fame take themselves way too seriously. Most non-BBWA writers and commentators who write about the Hall of Fame take themselves way too seriously.
It's a bunch of plaques in the middle of nowhere in Upstate New York, in a town that has as much claim to having been the birthplace of baseball as Moscow (Russia or Idaho) does. And yes, I've been there. I didn't get goosebumps.
The latest fetish is the "all stats all the time" way of analyzing Hall of Fame candidates. The first thing the statheads have to remember is that they themselves have been all over the place in analyzing statistics over the years. The same people who are now knocking Jim Rice's qualifications were writing articles extolling Jim Rice's stats when he was alive (at least those of you who were past the diaper stage them--I'm looking at you, Bill James).
The Hall of Fame won't die if Rock Raines isn't in it, the Hall of Fame won't be laughed at if Jim Rice gets in.
Putting Bowie Kuhn in (and leaving Marvin Miller out) is quite a joke, but isn't the biggest joke in Hall of Fame history either. Hall of Fame stories are mainly chopping wood during the week the football playoffs take up the rest of the oxygen in the room.
-
Exactly who is going to be swayed
[Read the article: For Clinton, a "voice" and a victory]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]by a "major union endorsement in Nevada tomorrow"? This isn't 1960. There are few union members and even fewer union members who vote for President based on their union's endorsement. Yeah, it might help with fundraising (not that Hillary Clinton has ever lacked for funds, and Edwards can write himself a check) and with volunteers, but I can't imagine it swaying anyone in any direct sense.
Sounds more like pundits trying to prove themselves right even when they're wrong.
Again.