Dan Gould

No opinion about Pats, Bruins, Celts fans, but I've always found Red Sox fans obnoxious. It has nothing to do with appearing entitled, but with the exaggerated fatalism/overintellectualized analysis/whining practiced by longtime fans. The year I moved from the Midwest (Chi area) to the East Coast was 1978, the comeback/Bucky Dent year. I used to purchase the Boston Globe. The day after the playoff/Dent HR, the Globe ran a monstrous story in which they analyzed every single 1978 Sox loss, the message being "If we had won just one of these games, we'd be in the postseason". [The story was so detailed that it had to have been written before the 1-game "play-in" took place.] I found this incredibly whiny and bush, but typical of Soxdom, and it totally turned me off to the Sox, in perpetuity. Are you saying that if you finished a game out of the playoffs, you wouldn't think about the five or ten or twenty games in the season that should have been won but slipped away? I don't think its whiny or bush, the only thing I would have done differently is to pare down the list to the top 10 or 15 winnable games that didn't turn out the right way, not an analysis of every single loss. After all, like they say, there are fifty games you're going to win no matter what and fifty you are going to lose. What happens with the other sixty is what determines your fate. Basically it sounds like you resent the fact that New England and Boston in particular have so many intellectuals who have taken inspiration from the fatalism that resulted from following the team. This I can't quite comprehend. But don't worry - there isn't a lot of fatalism or whining in the fan base anymore. Intellectualizing the meaning of being a Boston fan or the significance of wins and losses is something that will endure, however.

What is interesting is that this is New York vs Boston in a major sporting event, but its Boston that looks like the big bad Yankees and the Giants that have to overcome the odds to somehow pull out a win. I find it annoying that so many people are finding New England sports fans to be so obnoxious and entitled. I really wish it were possible to kick people off the bandwagon. Pink Hats at Fenway, people who think that the Sox and Patriots should always win, who've never felt the pain that is supposed to come from following these teams - its all very annoying. In fact, I decided to exchange a t-shirt that a friend sent for Christmas. It said "don't you wish you were a part of Red Sox Nation?" and I had to tell him how I wish there were fewer people, not encouraging more to join, or be obnoxious because I am and you aren't. So I had him order a replacement that shows an apple core with an NY insignia and it says "How 'Bout Them Apples?" I figured it was a good way to rib a Yankee fan since we finally took the Division crown and a second World Championship in this Millenium. But at the same time, it leaves that Yankee fan to say "26" or whatever, so its good. Not some obnoxious, don't you wish you were a Sox fan message.

That's what I've always wondered. Someone starts a thread about some ridiculously high-priced "turn key" record business but I never follow up to see how they turn out. My guess is they don't - I don't think a lot of the normal-size record lots sell, but finding someone with $80,000 to spend, and in such a short period of time, seems unlikely. Kinda surprised that he didn't use the "Make me an offer" option.

My wife returned home just as Favre threw the last interception, I brought her up to speed on the game and then said to her, "watch - after missing before, he'll nail this". I had a hard time deciding who to root for in that game - I wasn't looking forward to two weeks of the brown-nosing of Brett Favre, but I was cured of any rooting interest in the Giants when Eli took over. In the end, considering how close the teams were on the last weekend of the season, this should be a very good Super Bowl - but I think that New England has a better chance of making adjustments that nullify whatever advantage the Giants had in keeping the last game close. I do know that I'll be more pissed off than I have ever been - I mean, Aaron bleepin Boone pissed off - if Eli leads the Giants to a win and ruins the perfect season.

Al said my thoughts exactly.

Well, I don't mind being accused of a lack of objectivity. I've looked at the evidence to date and have no reason to believe Clemens' denials. Could that change? Yes, if McNamee declares under oath that he was pressured by Federal agents to implicate Clemens and that everything he has said was false, and then those same federal agents come out and confirm that this was all a conspiracy to implicate Roger Clemens. Since we know that's not going to happen, I'm comfortable with the conclusions I've drawn from the available evidence. As for the use of the term "scum bag", if you take a closer look at Clemens' agents, I think you'll find that they aren't exactly regarded as angels, though its certainly true that they've generally just done his bidding and certainly got him a lot of money. I simply regard agents and defense attorneys in general (especially super-expensive, "aw shucks I'm just a country lawyer" types) as scummy in the extreme.

Two pieces of bad news for Roger the Dodger in today's papers. Number one would be this Newday column which states 1) Pettitte isn't happy with Clemens' approach to the situation, and particularly his airing of the taped phone call 2) Pettitte and Clemens aren't really as close as people say The obvious implication being that Clemens may not get much support from Pettitte when it comes to testimony that is under oath and subject to prosecution for perjury. Number two, and in my opinion potentially catastrophic to Clemens in terms of the risk of making false assertions under oath; his libel suit and his public image is this article in the Daily News. It reports that in 2003-04, McNamee was concerned about Clemens testing positive during the "survey" steroid testing MLB and the Player's Union had started. He contacted Clemens' scumbag agents, and had a lengthy conversation with one of their employees. The employee, Jim Murray, took "copious" notes. The News gives an extensive quote from the transcript of the phone call: We're really back to the "fixin' to bury me" thing - Clemens isn't saying "why did you lie?" He's saying "why did you spill the beans on me?" And if Clemens was pure as the driven snow, why is he asking about connections to Radomski? There's no logical reason to be concerned about a connection to a steroid distributor unless you were using the stuff and were afraid that it was going to come out. The NY Times has its own report and unlike the News, they got a response from the scumbag agents and attorney: Of course Clemens' scumbag attorney and agent are going to deny, deny, deny - but does this person want to risk jail by lying about such a conversation? Do you think that the Hendricks brothers are about to make this guy a partner in the agency, or give him one huge "bonus"? Looks to me like the most critical question now is whether this Murray person is a Greg Anderson type or a Paul McNamee type. Roger Clemens place in baseball history may depend on the answer to that question. And that comment - I asked you, I don't know how many months ago - why is Clemens asking about a connection to the Mets clubhouse guy if he's clean? Why is he worried what McNamee might say? Why is he asking these questions, why is he hiring attorneys and sending PIs to interview his trainer? The more you think about this, the worse and worse it looks for Clemens. We can only hope that both the Feds and the Committee Staff are gong to subpoena this guy and interview him. If he doesn't adopt the company line, Clemens would be insane to testify before Congress.

My understanding is that these offers are legit in terms of receiving legitimate payment but in reality you are laundering money for them, and its highly likely that the Feds will come down on you for your role.

Are you forgetting that the label's "quality control" went way South at one point when it embraced shallow funk? Chris, are you calling Baby Face Willette, John Patton, Lou Donaldson, Freddie Roach, Lonnie Smith, Reuben Wilson, Grant Green, Jimmy Smith, Stan Turrentine & Don Wilkerson shallow funk? Or do you mean what happened after Francis Wolff died? I'd have to admit that, even with this line up, Blue Note wasn't as good as Prestige at this stuff but dismissing it doesn't seem anywhere near right. MG I asked him the same question above and I think he acknowledges that he's referring to the "Dr." Butler, post-Lion/Wolff years. Well Dr. Butler did produce Lee Morgan's "The Last Session" so he couldn't have been all that bad. Yeah, well I'm sure he also produced all of those Bobbi Humphrey albums too. Ever hear of the saying that even a stopped clock is right twice a day?

Are you forgetting that the label's "quality control" went way South at one point when it embraced shallow funk? Chris, are you calling Baby Face Willette, John Patton, Lou Donaldson, Freddie Roach, Lonnie Smith, Reuben Wilson, Grant Green, Jimmy Smith, Stan Turrentine & Don Wilkerson shallow funk? Or do you mean what happened after Francis Wolff died? I'd have to admit that, even with this line up, Blue Note wasn't as good as Prestige at this stuff but dismissing it doesn't seem anywhere near right. MG I asked him the same question above and I think he acknowledges that he's referring to the "Dr." Butler, post-Lion/Wolff years.

Its 80 degrees here and sunny. I'll be playing tennis a little later.

Its pretty simple - the Articles of Confederation included a "President". As it was conceived, it was a completely different position. From the Wikipedia entry: In short, the "President" was little more than the modern day Speaker of the House (if our system didn't include an independent executive). The Constitutional Convention was called to "amend" the Articles, not junk them. Fortunately, the members managed to do so, and the states were called upon to ratify a completely new, and totally different set of ground rules for the young nation. So, under the Constitution, Washington was the first President. There were previous presidents under the Articles of Confederation.

Unless there is some bad grammar I'm not aware of, the Articles were poorly conceived, not written.

I was assaulted by the preview at "I Am Legend" and my wife and I turned to each other and said "I don't think so". Though I've seen a couple of good reviews, there would have to be unanimous, effusive raves before I'd reconsider.

I'd propose offering you in trade (for a partial bag of ice) but they'd get sick of even quicker.

Peter is usually generous with his legal advice but if Shawn actually needs to hire an attorney licensed in VA, Peter can only help if he knows someone with the requisite experience. You might check with the Virginia Bar, Shawn. They may have unbiased referral services. Unless its a slip & fall case, I'd stay away from the ambulance chasers who advertise on daytime TV.

D'OH

The two I have feature Joe Williams and Sweets Edison as "guest soloist". Good music I haven't re-visited in a long time.

Thanks for the correcting my misunderstanding, Paul and John.

There are supposed to be rules in place about what level of industry success you've had previously. The fact that she got dropped before releasing a major label album probably makes her eligible. But they weren't exactly honest about her background. She's opened for some pretty big acts like Neal McCoy, and sung the National Anthem at a bunch of venues. It does feel like she's closer to success than anyone else previously. It will be interesting to see, assuming she gets through to the final group when the public starts to vote, if that background works against her and someone who is really struggling to get noticed gets more support.

Yeah, but I got one problem with Ace. They own the Duke catalog, right? I know they've put out some fine Gatemouth comps - but where is the full-on, we-love-him-and-he-deserves-it treatment of one JUNIOR PARKER??? I've seen one lousy Ace LP, and he's not even listed on the site under "artists" at all. And Junior Parker, from the start of his career to the end, was one of the very greatest blues/R&B/soul singers of them all. Is it possible Ace doesn't own all of the Duke recordings? I know that MCA put out some Junior Parker comps on CD - did they lease or do they maintain the rights? And what of his label-mate and co-concert attraction, Bobby Bland? Personally, every single thing I've heard by Junior Parker rates as nothing less than "good" and most of the time is flat-out GREAT, from the Duke sides to the Mercury LPs and even what I've heard of the Groove Merchant years at the end of his life (haven't heard the Beatles covers, but that's about it). Call me crazy, I like Bobby Bland but LOVE Junior Parker. It would be nice if Ace felt the same way.

Yeah, that was creepy, espcially when he was moving in closer and closer to Paula while singing. My favorite verse: "if I was a plumber I would caulk her" I think it was all a lark. If Paula had experiences with crazed stalkers, she probably wouldn't have been laughing through the whole thing, she'd have gotten up and had security hustle him out the door. Plus, everyone goes through the first screening before a select few get the chance to be on TV, so they must have thought it was harmless to put him through to the "real" audition in the first place. I really liked the "If I were Columbo, I'd Peter Falk her" line.

If you didn't see it, here's the "stalker" song.

Seems to me that what was viewed by the inspector is enough to convict on its own. He acknowledged that the laptop was his and he entered the password to show the video. The Inspector can testify to what he saw in the video and this guy should go away for a long time. I would err on the side of not protecting the "rights" of consumers of child porn.

Since I buy more vinyl than CDs, I'd say I spend a good deal of time transferring the vinyl to CD. Wish I had more time for it, actually.