You Can Buy a New Couch. Where Am I Going to Get New Legs?

Last week, the New York Times had a fascinating article about a South African amputee-sprinter named Oscar Pistorius. He is attempting to qualify for the Beijing Olympics in 2008 despite resistance from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). His times are good enough to win gold in equivalent women’s races at the 2004 games in Athens. For men’s, they could possibly be good enough to qualify. But, as the article attempts to answer, do prosthetic limbs provide an unfair advantage?

On a purely prima facie level, the question seems absurd. However, there is no real science to prove one way or the other. As the article points out, Pistorius has never had legs, making it impossible to compare his running ability with human legs versus his times with the “Cheetah” legs. For more detail, I suggest you read the article.

I am not sure how I feel. It is tough to say he has an unfair advantage, but at the same time he is not on equal footing, so to speak, with the other competitors. It is a very gray area between human rights and fair play. Although, I don't think it is an inalienable right to compete in the Olympics.

It is one of those issues where I would completely understand if the IOC said he couldn't race. At the same time, I can't help thinking, "Why not?" One person says he should just stick to the Paralympics. But are the Paralympics meant to be the equivalent of the Olympics or a substitute for disabled people who aren't good enough to compete in the Olympics because of their handicap? I really believe it is the latter. If that is the case, then there is no reason he should be disallowed from competing.

I would be really interested to see some research related to the advantages v. the disadvantages of fake legs. I have to believe it is greater disadvantage.

Another aspect I thought of, which was actually addressed briefly in the article, is what happens if a man with no legs wins an Olympic track event. If someone with no legs competes and wins, do you think an able-bodied athlete would replace his/her natural legs with prosthetic ones? I hope there isn't a doctor in the world that would perform such an unnecessary and frivolous surgery. But given the athletes who will inject their bodies with anything to be on top, I am inclined to believe there is an athlete out there who would probably consider it. To quote the article, “Is it self-mutilation if the new legs are better?” I would say yes, but it isn’t my body.

In the end, I say let the guy run. Until someone can prove beyond all doubt that running on prosthetics provides an unfair advantage, there is no basis to prevent him from participating. If he can qualify, he deserves to be there.


Read more...

Guilty of Crimes Against Baseball

This is it. I can’t take it anymore. I have sat through six plus seasons of this yammering jackass. I have talked to enough people who agree with me on this topic. I have found a silent majority of baseball/Red Sox fans who know what good broadcasting should be. Quietly, while the front office is treating us to Fenway renovations, World Series rings and Japanese pitchers, they have also insulted our intelligence with their coverage on NESN. It starts with the guy who has one of the greatest jobs in sports, if not all the world. Don Orsillo has butchered the English language and insulted baseball fans throughout New England for too long. It has to stop now.

Simply put, the guy is terrible. He is a disgrace to Red Sox Nation. He shouldn’t be allowed to get water for the camera guys never mind possessing one of the marquee announcing jobs in baseball.

Where should I begin?

First, he is a moron. He just doesn’t understand baseball. Or, at least, he does an amazing job of playing rube to Remy’s insightful analysis. In a game against the Mariners, during a Richie Sexson at bat, Dice-K threw a hanging breaking ball that Richie missed. Remy, not once but twice, pointed out that V-Tek immediately told Dice-K to keep his shoulder in on the pitch. Remy had just finished explaining what was wrong with that hanging breaking ball (something that should have been apparent to any baseball fan) when Sexson strikes out on an almost identical pitch to the first hanger. Don’s immediate reaction: “Strike three. Nasty.” His ignorance shining through, Remy immediately said, “I wouldn’t call that nasty, Don.” Don’s reply, of course, “Oh, that was a hanger.” If you need someone to point out a hanging breaking ball to you, you shouldn’t be charged with calling the game.

This segues neatly to my next point. Don Orsillo’s only move is taking whatever Remy says and repeating it with different words. Here are real examples from the spring:

Remy: I like flipping around. I just like sitting in that chair and
flipping, flipping, flipping that way you catch a little of everything.
Don: Watching TV with you must be tough…I don’t think you hang on
anything too long I am guessing.

You’re guessing? He just said he doesn’t.

Remy: Well Don, neither team is playing all of their stars, but regardless, Sox-Yankees always generates excitement, even in Spring Training.
Don: Some of the marquee names may be absent, but even so, this rivalry generates keen interest, even in an exhibition.

And don’t forget his clutch go to: Chuckle like your life depended on it.

I could spend all day listing the various faults of Don Orsillo. As near as I can tell, his only positive attribute is having a good voice. Otherwise, the guy is an incompetent boob.

Another fatal flaw is his seeming need to develop catchphrases. Is there anything more tired than an announcer who needs to crowbar clichés into his game calling? The essence of great announcing is spontaneity. I understand he is doing games everyday and not every game warrants the excitement and drama of, “Do you believe in miracles?” And sure, it would be unreasonable to expect him not to have a phrase or two he repeats with occasional frequency. But, he only has one way to describe certain events. If you watch every NESN game, it becomes increasingly nauseating to hear this guy do his job.

Here is a list of some of his more severe crimes against baseball:

Dice-K’d – This is the greatest example of someone forcing canned lines down our throat. He did it once about a month ago. I hoped it would die a quick death. However, this weekend against the Braves, it reared its ugly head again. Imagine my uncontrollable rage, nearly launching a remote control through my parents’ TV, when I heard: “Chipper Jones, you’ve just been Dice-K’d.” Are you kidding me? What is next? “Manny Ramirez, boom goes the dynamite.”

Pitch counting – With Don, the viewer always knows the pitch count. From the first inning on, we know the total number of pitches thrown, the number of pitches thrown that inning, the number of pitchers thrown to that batter, the number of pitchers thrown since the last time Don told us the number of pitches thrown, etc, etc, etc, etc. Great, we get it. You know how to count and apparently like counting. I am sure we can find a place for you on Sesame Street.

Down by way of the K - Simply because it rhymes doesn’t make it right. In fact, as a general rule, if something rhymes, it is probably stupid.

In the midst of a meeting with himself - How do you know Don? Maybe he is just wiping crud off his cleats. Maybe he just wanted to adjust his cup.

In through the back door - This one makes no sense and is one of his more idiotic phrases. For those that don’t get how it would fit into a game, it is like this – runner on third and less than 2 outs: “Grounder to second base. Over to first for the out. And Manny comes in through the back door.” The only way this would ever make sense is if a guy was trying to score, he slid around the catcher and then reached back with his hand to tag the plate. In that situation, it might make sense.

He has struck out three different times today - In fairness, Orsillo isn’t alone on this one, but he does say it. Inherent in struck out three times is that they are different times. You can’t strike out three times at once.

It is high, it is far, it is gone - I don’t know about you, but I don’t need canned home run calls…period. Plus, this is a blatant rip-off of Michael Sterling from the YES network. Or is this just an homage?

Lugo is equidistant between second and third – This one is just a matter of TV v. radio. If Don were doing games for WRKO/WEEI this might be a worthwhile thing to say, but probably not. You can simply say Lugo is between second and third. Even on the radio people could figure out that image. But it is more ridiculous on TV. I don’t need Don to describe the action in painstaking detail. I am watching it too. I can see what is happening.

First base is open – I know. You are probably saying, "this is perfectly prescient and acceptable thing to say during a baseball game." You are right. It is. However, Don lets us know any time first base is open, no matter the batter, no matter the on-deck hitter. For instance, I just caught a replay of one of the Red Sox walk-off wins from 2005. Johnny Damon was on second with two outs. Edgar Renteria was at-bat with a 2-0 count, and David Ortiz waiting on-deck. Keep in mind that Ortiz had already tied the game with a home run off of then Orioles closer B.J. Ryan, and he is David FUCKING Ortiz. As the pitcher threw ball 3, Orsillo remarked, “First base is open.” Yeah, it is Don. But no one would ever pitch around Renteria in order to face Ortiz with the winning run in scoring position. It is a classic example of him not understanding the game or what he is saying.

Here is another more recent example of him just not getting it. In the first game of the Red Sox-A's series, Francona pinch hit Alex Cora. The A's intentionally walked him - runner on second less than two outs they needed to set up the double play. So the next night, Don in his I-think-I-am-asking-an-intelligent-question mode asks Remy, "Were you surprised they walked Cora?" Remy just said, "No." To most people, it should have been obvious why the answer was no, but Orsillo pushed forward. Remy then explained the percentages, needing to set-up a double, etc. The irony of this is Orsillo loves to tell us that first base is open in the most inappropriate times. For example, with Pedroia up and a 3-1 count on him, "First base is open." Yeah, Don it is, but that isn't relevant because they aren't pitching around Dustin. I feel like I am going to send myself to an early grave getting angry over his boobery.

Unfortunately, Don isn’t alone. The whole NESN broadcast is amateur hour (except when compared to the other hack jobs around the league). Tina Cervasio doesn’t have the slightest bit of baseball common sense. She actually asked a Boston College baseball player after facing Dice-K, “Do you think the strike zone Dice-K was getting tonight was similar to the one he got in Japan?” How the hell is a college kid supposed to know that? I know for a fact the BC baseball team does not spend any time playing games in the Pacific League. Her segments are regularly devoid of intelligence or useful information. She asks the world’s most idiotic questions and seemingly serves no purpose other than making me upset.

My suggestion? Fire Tina and Don. Send Hazel with them too. Move Dave O’Brien from the radio to TV. He is good enough to be the lead soccer announcer for ABC/ESPN, but has to share a booth with Castiglione in Boston. Scrap the whole sideline reporter altogether. Baseball doesn’t need it, and Tina usually contributes nothing anyway. Actually, if we had to have a sideline reporter, it should be Tina’s sister. She was on camera during a Spring Training game. She is like a hotter version of Tina. They might as well go as hot as possible; I know Tina wasn’t hired for her incredible “chest” of baseball knowledge.

Alas, too many people just don’t care. The fact that Orsillo and company are nice people is enough. I know Sean McDonough isn’t walking through that door. I know neither Curt Gowdy nor Ned Martin is walking through that door. But I am just tired of seeing baseball of the highest caliber sullied by broadcasting that wouldn’t pass muster on a college station.

Save the Red Sox; fire Don Orsillo.

Read more...

MLS Making It Work

We are going to aggressively put the emphasis on the game itself, providing fans what they want, where every game matters, every moment matters. We want to elevate the level of excitement and competition on the field and improve the level of access for our fans.Back in January I talked about the David Beckham deal and the MLS. In that piece, I discussed what I believed to be necessary steps for the MLS to become more important globally. Now as the MLS season is set to start, it seems they have made a few sincere steps to being a respectable league.

The first issue is the supposed David Beckham exception. The rule was instituted to allow teams to spend more money on talent thus making the league more competitive. Since the Beckham signing, there is little to no news of great new players coming to the league. In fact, only two teams have signed a player using the new exception. (One player being American Claudio Reyna - hardly the rules intended target.)

Two things are still inhibiting the signing of talented international players: Teams don’t see the need to spend the money. Players don’t see the incentive to leave Europe.

The question: How is MLS addressing this?

On the first count, at least publicly, they aren’t doing anything. They aren’t about to force the hand of owners by making them spend money. However, they are working to create incentive to play in America.

On Saturday, MLS will unveil another soccer-specific stadium (SSS). This is a great step towards legitimacy. Nothing makes the league look like a second-tier operation more than playing in football stadiums. The stadiums are too large for the attendance (average MLS attendance is 15,000; average NFL stadium holds between 50 and 60,000). Soccer is an intimate game that demands fan involvement. The atmosphere of a game is important. It is tough to create a loud, singing atmosphere in a cavernous stadium that is 80 percent empty. Secondly, the pitch on these fields can be absolutely dreadful. Look at Gillette Stadium last year or the Meadowlands with their Astroturf field. SSS provide the opportunity for the fans to become a part of the game and affords players a great surface to play the beautiful game.

By 2008, seven of the 13 teams should be playing in an SSS. The remaining teams are all in the process of trying to get a stadium built. Additionally, any expansion team needs to have plans to build an SSS. Another great move to ensure the league growth is strong and committed for the long haul.

Another initiative is the SuperLiga. This summer will see the inaugural SuperLiga, which is an MLS-La Primera División (Mexico) tournament based on the UEFA Champions League format. Along with the CONCACAF Champions Cup and Lamar Hunt Open Cup (the American FA Cup), MLS is involved with a growing number of club tournaments, which over time could add value to the entire MLS experience for the players.

Along with qualifying for international tournaments, the method for qualifying for the MLS Cup playoffs is slightly modified to more resemble the table format used around the world. The top two teams in each conference will qualify for the playoffs; however, the final four spots will be filled by the best teams, based on points, regardless of conference. I like this because it ensures the best eight teams are in the playoffs - better competition means better games.

The final thing the league will do this year is improve the game presentation. The MLS is unveiling their “Game First” initiatives. “Quality starts with the quality of the player pool,” deputy commissioner Ivan Gazidis said in announcing the initiative. “We are going to aggressively put the emphasis on the game itself, providing fans what they want, where every game matters, every moment matters. We want to elevate the level of excitement and competition on the field and improve the level of access for our fans.”

This involves looking like a top-flight football division rather than an American soccer league. One of the biggest changes will be the entrance into the stadiums. Much like the rest of the FIFA world, MLS teams will now be lead onto the field by the referees. According to deputy commissioner Ivan Gazidis, the players will come out to, “music recorded last week by an 80-piece orchestra in Prague; it speaks directly to the traditions of soccer and the piece will represent us well.”

Speaking of referees, the league has hired four full-time referees and limited the ref pool in order to create more uniform officiating – including emphasis on simulation (diving) and time killing tactics. Both are points of consternation for the average American wannabe fan.

Not to be greedy, but I have one more suggestion for the league. This year in Europe there has been a lot of hemming and hawing over offsides. One of the more difficult decisions to make in all of sports, the assistants have erred on the side of caution. It seems most tight decisions are going to the defense, which directly affects scoring. I have seen too many well-timed runs flagged this season. I would like to see the MLS institute a much looser interpretation of the rule. I would even be in favor of a daylight rule. Hey, for a ball to be ruled out of bounds the entire ball must cross the line. Why not require a player’s entire body to be offsides for it to be offsides? I think this would be particularly important for the league since the biggest complaint is about goal scoring.

At any rate, less than three days until the season starts. Joga Bonito!

Read more...

Merde! Objet Volant Non Identifié là

For anyone who still doubts the value of the French, I would like to direct your attention to Le GEIPAN (le groupe d'études et d'informations sur les phénomènes aérospatiaux non identifiés). Bringing it back to English, it is the group responsible for UFO reports in France (or/ou Objet Volant Non Identifié - ONVI). Last week, Le Centre National D'Études Spatiales (CNES - NASA France) unveiled a new Web site documenting every reported UFO sighting in France over the last 50 years. Of course, the combination of it being French and the intense fascination worldwide with UFOs caused the Web site to crash repeatedly. It is currently accessible, but slow and slightly stripped down.

How bad is it? The message on the homepage lacks proper accent markings. Clearly, CNES and GEIPAN were not prepared for the traffic a site about UFOs would bring.

Personally, along with TV shows about ghosts and Web sites in foreign languages, I absolutely love a good UFO story. It is extremely fantastic that a government has taken the steps to release this information to the public. The French have released 1,600 reported UFO sightings on the Web site dating back to 1954. Of those reports, 25% are class D: In spite of good data and witnesses, the mysterious sightings remain inexplicable. Only about 9% of all ONVI sightings have been explained.

I wish I could tell you that I have combed through all the records and found interesting information. Unfortunately, navigating the Web site is nearly impossible due to the amount of traffic. So far I have only been able to answer the most fundamental questions like "Qu'est-ce que c'est le GEIPAN?" For background information, readers can go to an English page on the CNES Web site. But even that page has slowed to a crawl.

The reason I mention this is twofold. First of all, I think the US should do the same thing. These stories have to be great reading. For those of you who have never spent much time watching shows about UFOs, imagine a bunch of reports where the key witness is the outgoing but borderline mentally-challenged kid from your high school. In short, endless entertainment.

Do I actually think we will find anything juicy such as the big Roswell revelation we have always wanted? Of course not. I just don't like cold cases. I don't like suspicion and conspiracy theories; I want to believe someone is right about who Jack the Ripper was (I am still holding out hope for Lewis Carroll), I want to know that D.B. Cooper was Duane Webber, and I want to know who the Zodiac Killer is. I need closure. Releasing these reports would be a step toward closure on UFOs.

Secondly, last week former Arizona Governor Fife Symington (awesome name) admitted, contrary to his statements at the time, that he had no idea what took place in the sky over Phoenix 10 years ago. Then Governor Symington not only unequivocally denied the reports of E.T. activity, but went so far as to dress his chief-of-staff as an alien at a press conference to mock the believers. Now, he says, he isn't sure what it was and doesn't believe the explanation given jibes with what he saw.

Of course, Fifey needed a presidential pardon to avoid going to jail on bank fraud charges a few years later. Not exactly a great character reference. However, in UFO terms, he is pretty damn good. Today, he is employed as a pastry chef. As a former Air Force captain, though, he says, "I'm a pilot, and I know just about every machine that flies. It was bigger than anything that I've ever seen. It remains a great mystery. Other people saw it, responsible people. I don't know why people would ridicule it."

I don't know either. Except for the fact that it was a perfectly explainable occurrence. At least according to astronomer James McGaha.

"It was clearly aircraft in formation, flying at two different times and then dropping flares, and it's clear to any rational person that's what it was," McGaha said. He continued, "[Symington] is not a trained observer and what he feels in his gut doesn't make any difference."

Well excuse us Admiral Nerdlington if we want to have a little fun. I don't think he should dismiss it so quickly. Hell, this is a much more relevant question for politicians than have you ever smoked pot. I don't care who has or hasn't smoked pot, but I will adjust my voting patterns based on who does and doesn't believe in UFOs or poltergeists. I mean, not on important elections like president or governor, but I would definitely vote for a city councilor if I thought he might go off on a rant about protecting Boston from aliens. Tell me you wouldn't want to see Barack Obama debate John McCain on the possibility of UFOs. There has to be at least a 90% chance that McCain believes in UFOs. I would also say there is probably a 60% chance he would rip out Obama's larynx for disagreeing with him.

I think it boils down to this: unless it is related to the beliefs of Scientology, everyone is allowed to believe UFOs regularly visit Earth. Personally, I believe in it because I want it to be true not because I actually think it is true. Life is stressful enough these days. Let's have a little fun with it.

To quote my new favorite former politician: "You guys are entirely too serious."


Read more...

Tavarez Every Fifth Day

Yes. Finally. Someone over on Yawkey Way must be listening. I have been asking for Julian Tavarez in the starting rotation all winter. I have many reasons. Most of which were based on the intangibles he brings. Not the least of which is the guy is absolutely bat-shit crazy. But also, the guy just has not been effective at all in the bullpen. This is the only logical place for a guy of Tavarez's "ability."

Now, I will admit I was pushing for Wakefield to be removed from the rotation. I still wish I didn't have to witness Tim Wakefield pitch every fifth day, however, the knuckleball will be an omen of the crazy the next day. Words cannot express how excited I am.

Read more...

The Secret Double Negative

Have you ever heard someone say something like, "I can't help but like baseball?" I am sure you have. Maybe you have even used this construction yourself. Can't help but is pervasive in our language. For some reason, people can't help but do a great many things. Now ask yourself this. Would you ever say, "I don't have nothing?" Of course not. Everyone knows that is a double negative. Every kid is trained to avoid double negatives. Yet, very few people are ever told to avoid the double negative can't help but.

First let's analyze what is literally being said in these constructions.

Sentence: I can't help but go swimming;
Intention: I can't stop myself from swimming;
Actual: The one thing I can stop myself from doing is
swimming.

Sentence: I can't help but think about him;
Intention: I keep thinking about him;
Actual: The one thing I am not thinking about is him.

The problem comes with not recognizing but is in fact a negative. When you use but you are presenting an exception. Therefore, whatever follows the but is in contradiction to what precedes it.

There is no doubt that literally this construction is incorrect.

Unfortunately, some people accept this structure by classifying it as an idiom. And, by definition, it could be considered an idiom. I take exception, however, with it being used in writing. Idioms are really bad metaphors. Clichés, to quote a friend, are life preservers for people who don't deserve to be saved.

I classify this under the "irregardless law." Persistent incorrect usage should not be accepted into the formal language. It is linguistic apathy which allows the language to erode to the point where people cannot identify the difference between your and you're or there, they're and their.

I will not give up the fight.


Read more...

I Call Your Bluff And Raise You a Kid!

By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself....At the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.Scanning the news around the country today, I happened across a couple of interesting stories related to homosexuality in America. The first thing was Tim Hardaway's ridiculously, moronic comments regarding gay players in the NBA. The second was from a story in Washington regarding a Modest Proposal of sorts from the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. While I would be remiss to ignore the Tim Hardaway topic, I want to focus on the other story since it is slightly more important than the rantings of one person.

I first became aware of this story on the Colbert Report this week. It is an interesting touché by gay rights advocates. So here is the story as I understand it.

In 2006, the Supreme Court in Washington State issued a ruling on marriage. The decision in Andersen v. King County stated that there is a "legitimate state interest" allowing the Legislature to restrict marriage to a man and woman: procreation and child-rearing.

"Under this standard, DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation,essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents."

I find this reasoning laughable for a few reasons. First of all, neither one of those objectives is affected by same-sex marriage. Secondly, I hardly think our species is in a position where procreation needs to be legislated. And even if it were, I think it should be left to some higher body than the Washington State Legislature. Thirdly, how does preventing same-sex marriage ensure that households are headed by biological parents? Did I miss something or when a same-sex couple gets married are they entitled to the child of an opposite-sex couple? Also, did I miss the study that said children are better off in orphanages than being raised by a gay couple?

When reading this opinion, I couldn't help feeling the logic was flimsy because the justices themselves didn't believe it was right, but they didn't want to be viewed as activists. Prior to her opinion, Justice Barbara Madsen delivered an extended recap of judicial purview. She goes out of her way to explain her decision must be based on whether the law is constitutional and not whether she thinks it is a good law. She even goes so far as to quote Justice John Paul Stevens who said of several noteworthy opinions with which he was involed that he was “convinced that the law compelled a result that [he] would have opposed if [he] were a legislator.” At the very least she was recusing herself from the debate over gay marriage itself. Though an argument could be made that she was making a veiled stance on behalf of gay marriage. It is difficult to accurately say without knowing her at all.

At any rate, this is where the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance became involved. Despite their deceiving name, they are in fact a pro-same-sex marriage organization. They have taken the words of the justices and used them to craft a rather creative retort to this legal decision.

As described by Greg Gadow, the 39-year old behind this initiative, the purpose is, "to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law."

He refers to the initiative as "political street theater." And, needless to say, it has managed to get the expected rise out of conservatives.

Here is the initiative:

If passed by Washington voters, I-957 would:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
  
• Require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
  
• Require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
  
• Establish a process for filing proof of procreation;
  
• Make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

"Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."

I admire Gadow for his approach. The debate against gay marriage is ridiculous. All argumentation I have read or heard is based on either bad logic or theologically-justified bigotry.

Some pundits view this as proof of the assault on marriage by the gay community. It isn't, it is an assault on stupidity. Some others see this as a negative waste of time and a foolish abuse of the political process. It isn't, it is the hallmark of political activism. I see Greg Gadow as a modern Jonathan Swift - minus the children eating.

And now briefly, Tim Hardaway.

First the guy is an ignorant moron. He should be treated no differently than someone who says s/he hates blacks or s/he hates Jews or s/he hates (fill in the group).

Secondly, to all the people who say he shouldn't be criticized or he has the right to free speech, listen up! Free speech allows you to say whatever you want. There is very limited prior restraint in this country. For the most part, if you can find a forum then you can let it rip. However, free speech does not shield you from the consequences of your speech. The country granted Tim Hardaway his free speech, now he has to suffer the consequence of his foolish remarks.




Washington Defense of Marriage Read more...

Today's Pet Peeve

As much as I do not want to be viewed as a petty malcontent, I cannot help critiquing media. While I admit it may be a little unfair to pick on this particular outlet (it is a new baseball related blog), I must express my annoyance at a particular policy they have: citation abuse.

I have seen this in other places as well. Yahoo! is great at citing common facts. For instance, their fantasy sports section regularly contains info like this, "Manny Ramirez went 3 for 4 with a home run yesterday against the Orioles according to Gordon Edes of the Boston Globe."

I am not making that up. They source every statistical reference in their news and notes section no matter how insignificant. Not to take anything away from the scoop that Gordon Edes was able to get on that 3 for 4 game, there is no need to reference him. However, it is an institutional policy to do things this way.

For most people, this is most likely just odd. But for me, it completely ruins the next 30 minutes of my day. I don't know why it affects me in a such a negative way. It probably has something to do with my protective attitude for language. Or, it is my total objection to stupidity.

Anyone who made it to high school should know the basic reasons for citing sources. However, for the many people who either didn't pay attention or just didn't care, let's review.

1) Use a citation any time you quote directly from another source. If you took a passage directly from someone you must acknowledge the source.

2) Use a citation if you are paraphrasing someone else's opinion. This is important to protect you, the writer. It is a good idea to establish a clear line between presenting your opinion and someone else's, particularly if the opinion is contentious or controversial. This is important, for example, if you are writing about racism and are presenting the opinion of a particular Ku Klux Klan member. Likewise, it is important if you are writing about scientific research and there is a chance a "fact" could turn out false.

3) Here is the one that Yahoo! and other Web sites seem to ignore. Only cite facts if they are unique to a source or not common knowledge. For example, cite Elias Sports Bureau if you need to use a particular statistical fact only they provide and cannot be found anywhere else. Do not cite generic statistical information that could easily be found on any sports Web site.

4) Loosely related to number 3, cite only information if it is unique to a source. For the sake of argument, let's say I am working on a paper about George Washington. Let's also assume that I have consulted several biographies about the General. If I find in only one of those books that his dog's name was Rex then I would definitely need to cite that source. However, if every biography I read included a reference to his dog Rex, it would become unnecessary to cite that information.

From this brief review, it should become clear some of the reasons to cite. One through three seem pretty obvious. Number four can be a little more subjective, but it is not too difficult to decide if something is common knowledge. Yet, media outlets, specifically new media outlets (i.e., the Internet), continue to overuse citations for some reason. Or, they use them for the wrong reason.

This is from the Wikipedia style guide:

Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must be sourced to a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article.

Why the emphasis on negative material? If Wikipedia is seeking to be a legitimate encyclopedia, it should work to verify all information. Clearly, their concern is more for litigation than effective citing. Yes, I agree. Any negative information about a person put on the Web should be refereed. However, it is no less important from a technical standpoint to fact check positive or flattering remarks. Why? Who is any writer to decide what is or isn't positive? I could write that a particular celebrity was instrumental organizing blood drives for people after September 11th, even donating blood himself. Sounds like great PR for someone, right? Suppose it is not true. Suppose it is not true because said celebrity is a Jehovah's Witness. I am guessing the celebrity would not view the unchecked "positive" as such.

I am writing this diatribe because of a story I read earlier tonight on a site called Bugs and Cranks. The article is a relatively benign overview of the disappointing career of Josh Hamilton. My problem is with two specific citations. Both items are common facts. First the fact that Johan Santana, Scott Podsednik, George Bell, Bobby Bonilla, Dan Uggla and Roberto Clemente were selected in the Rule V draft does not need a citation. Secondly, the fact that Brien Taylor never made it above double A baseball is also a common, incontrovertible fact not needing citation. While those two citations are enough to bother me, it is not the worst part of the ordeal. Both these items were not only needlessly cited, but also attributed to Wikipedia. No person with any dignity and pride in their work should ever cite Wikipedia. This to me is like telling everyone, "Hey, not only am I a moron, but I have sex with my sister too!" You can disagree with me, but it's how I feel.

I think it is better to cite when in doubt. However, it is much better to know when to cite and only do it when necessary. A paper loaded with citations and notes can get confusing. Inline citations, the preference for many online sites, are ugly and get in the way of the writing. Why use them more than needed? I appreciate writers who are vigilant and do not get sloppy when citing. At the same time, I lose respect for writers who needlessly cite - especially if that citation is Wikipedia.

For the record, on more than one occasion I have questioned writers at Bugs and Cranks about their unnecessary references. They say it comes from the top - it is an institutional decision to inundate their writing with superfluous citations. Again, the fear of people getting litigious results in an abundance of overly cautious behavior.

I suppose in the end I should learn to live with things like this. Until then, I will keep coming here to complain.



Read more...