Lynx said: "I don't know why either, but I'm smart enough to know that if they thought there was value, there probably was."

In response, Farnsworth said: "You have a point. After all, the NFL has always shown such wisdom in the rules they make and how they enforcemen them....Ahem."

I think Farnsworth is missing Lynx's point. I don't think he's extolling the rule itself. Most of the arguments in defense of the Patriots have pretty much consisted of the same core point: what they did probably didn't help their team that much. But many people seem to ignore the question, "Why?". Why would Belichick risk so much if this kind of cheating added so little value? Those of us who take this transgression seriously feel like a guy as smart as Belichick wouldn't have done such a thing if he thought it wasn't valuable.

I sincerely would like to hear the reason.

A Jets employee was removed by New England security during the 2006 season because he was filming from the endzone concourse, a location also prohibited by the NFL.

This is a common practice among NFL teams, and is NOT "prohibited by the NFL":

"NFL spokesman Greg Aiello agreed with Mangini, telling The Post that shooting from both end zones is common and within league rules.

'There are no restrictions on shooting from both upper end zone positions as long as the opportunity is provided to both teams,' Aiello said in an e-mail. 'No permission is needed from the league office.'"

It's worth mentioning that Savino was probably involved in the torture and murder of Brandon, Omar's first season boyfriend.

Next episode will blow people away...

Pelicanos is a jerk

Yes, you do improve your chances by switching your answer.

If I have 3 choices and I select 1, there is a 33.33333% chance I got it right (This leaves a 66.66666% chance that the correct choice is 1 of the other 2).

Whatever the game show host decides to do at this point has no material effect on the original probabilities, and by removing the incorrect choice of the 2 I didn't pick, I am left with the only remaining possible correct choice (assuming my original guess was incorrect--which I would assume). So, in effect, by switching your choice, you have increased your chances by 33.33333% and now have a nearly 67% chance of winning the Corvette.

Michael Kay has an interesting take on jinxing no-hitters:

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2006/08/idea-that-announcer-can-jinx-perfect.html

So, with inspiration from the Spiritual Science Research Foundation website, I'm going to go with The 25%-proportion-of-happiness-in-the-second-region-of-hell-exemplified-by-"pleasant-memories-of-wealth-in-the-worldly-transactions" plan

I have a feeling the post-anytime format will suit your thought process well, much in the way it's good for Joe Posnanski (by the way, why is he not listed under the sites you like? And while we're at it, where's Fire Joe Morgan????). Anyway, you seem like a tangential sort of guy, and the blog is the ideal medium for that...even if it feels like a column.

Keep up the good work!

Love,

H.G. "Buzz" Bissinger

There is wayyyy too much attention paid to polling in this country. Even election day polls are rarely as accurate as forecasts from the poli-sci guys that come out a couple months in advance (Christopher Wlezien and Robert Erikson usually come out with their predictions in early September, and they're usually pretty much dead-on balls accurate...if they come out with a prediction article this year, I hope HTWW keeps us posted).

Usually, leading economic indicators a few months in advance of the general election tend to be a good barometer of how things are going to go (the 2000 election was somewhat of an anomaly due to Gore/Brazile's exceptionally poor campaign--and yes, I realize the GOP smeared the hell out of the guy, but when does that not happen?). Seems pretty doubtful that we'll see much LEI growth in the coming months, and the other major issue outside of the economy is the Iraq war (not so bad for the GOP in '04, but a decided disadvantage this time around).

Should be interesting to see how the Dems lose this one.

I was reminded of the same thing, Lynx. Here's the full dialogue between Principal Skinner and Lisa:

Skinner: Well, I was wrong; the lizards are a godsend.

Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?

Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.

Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?

Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.

Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!

Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

I hate to sound like a naive idealist, but doesn't anyone think that idea of townhall debates on substantive issues with limited media filtering sounds, I don't know, good for democracy?

Fine hitter, horrible in the field...but definitely valuable overall. To call him the worst starter in the league is beyond ridiculous.

FJM did a pretty good job tearing into him about that

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/06/rough-year-for-jp-ricciardi-huh.html

I clicked on the link you provide for that...you were absolutely right about Bogut...but there was also this:

"Dick Vitale just got done saying the Hawks will regret not taking Chris Paul of Wake Forest rather than Marvin Williams. I presume he thinks the same about the Jazz, since Deron Williams plays Paul's position. The Hawks need a point guard, but Williams vs. Paul is kind of a toss-up. Either one could end up being better. They're both very good. But I think Vitale's wrong about Paul vs. Marvin Williams."

I don't know...Scott Baio was kind of glamorous in his heyday...

C'mon bro.

Also, I'll add my voice to the A Christmas Story chorus.