"player news" regarding Manny.  


this doesn't seem appropriate at all

Manny Ramirez (BOS - LF)

News: Manny Ramirez returned to the starting lineup on Saturday and went 0-for-3 with an intentional walk.
Impact: Ramirez's sore knee caused a problem in the eighth, when he was wrongly called out at third by umpire Ron Kulpa. Ramirez was going from first to third on Mike Lowell's tiebreaking single with two outs and was tagged after choosing not to slide. The tag, though, knocked the ball out Adrian Beltre's glove, which meant it wasn't truly a tag at all. Kulpa called him out anyway, apparently because Beltre was able to grab the ball before it hit the ground (as if it mattered), and none of other umpires could be bothered to get the call right. It was an especially big play after the Red Sox lost 4-3.

When i first saw that comment i thought "well, it's really really stupid, but there's gotta be something more offensive, right?" I tried to get inside Dusty's head to see if there is any defensible excuse for making such a comment. There isn't.

I guess the type of player that Dusty is talking about is a Giambi w/o power. Imagine someone as slow as Giambi who has as good an eye as Giambi, but who doesn't hit that many homers.

So Giambi* (*that's what we'll call him) leads off with a walk. He's now "clogging the bases" for the guy after him. I'm picturing someone that Dusty really likes, like say Tony Womack.

What are the options for Tony Womack?

Giambi doesn't "clog the base paths" if Womack homers, strikes out, flies out, pops up, walks, or hits a regular single.

If Womack hits a ground ball and Giambi is forced out, then at least Womack, the speedster gets on base for free and is the antithesis of "clogging".

If womack hits into a double play, then Giambi doesn't get a chance to "clog".

If womack hits a long single that could have been a double, then yes Giambi has clogged the paths by not being able to get all the way to third. So instead of womack on 2nd, you get Giambi on second and Womack on first. The latter is much more valuable, unless you are playing for just one run and the next guy singles.

If womack hits a potential triple, but only gets to 2nd b/c of Giambi clogging, then you have 2nd and 3rd instead of just 3rd. Again, having two guys on is much more valuable.

I can't really think of any other examples of this alleged "clogging". So yes, i guess it is the dumbest thing ever. Dusty is just assuming that his speedsters are hitting triples and inside the park home runs, but are forced to just settle for singles b/c of the runners ahead of them.



The AL currently has 9 teams above .500. The NL only has 4.

do i even waste my energy rooting against this?  



I give it 10 episodes.

i lasted two skits. ARRRRGGHHH  


mind you, i wasn't even "watching" SNL; instead, i just had it on in the background. SNL is so bad, that i couldn't stomach having a TV w/ it on, even if it was over my shoulder w/ the volume turned low. This second skit is with the actor doing a press conference or something with a punch of pirates. The pirates keep getting excited when the actor says a word that has "argh" in it. They all "argh".

it's like nails on a chaulkboard. The only standard they have to meet is to "not be so annoying that i have to physically get up and shut off a tv i'm not even watching". and they FAILED!

"You guys live to eat, I eat to live"*  


This seems like a no brainer, but i'm not really sure how much i like food. I know that sounds like an odd thing to say, but I've seen the way other people enjoy food, and I don't think i'm on that level. Here is a list of people and their food tendencies:

Friend A: chooses not to eat 90% of the time, but goes to great lengths to prepare his meals that other 10% of the time. He painstakingly chews each bite the medically approved 33 times before swallowing and can make an egg sandwich from Dunkin Donuts last an hour. He refuses to reheat pizza in the microwave and will even make an oil and seasoning dip for his bread when he's eating alone. Picture Ruth Fischer eating by herself in that dark scene from Six Feet Under, but more depressing.

Friend B: Lives for the perfect combo meal. It's very important to him to have different things in each meal. The easiest way to make his day is to suggest to order two things from take out and then split it. Spending an entire evening with him is disturbing, as he will space out the smallest of snacks every couple of hours. My theory on his eating habbits, however, was completely destroyed when he said that he finds a salad dressing that he likes, and sticks with it until he gets sick of it.

Friend C: Lives to eat. Will actually call me to tell me what he had for lunch, and what he's planning for dinner. Probably the 2nd most unhealthy eater i know in terms of quality of food. Is able to maintain a low quantity of food intake though, probably b/c he's now middle aged :)

Me: I love the act of eating, and "full" is a very satisfying feeling, but i don't know if i actually enjoy food. I get an hour at lunch, but even when i'm trying to stretch it out, i've ordered, eaten, and cleaned up within 30 minutes. I don't like too many choices, and would basically be satisfied with the exact same 3-squares for the rest of my life (bagel w/ cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner). I can't imagine ever getting bored of that.

In fact, I've now been working downtown for over a months, and have had less than a handful of types of meals. #1 in the rotation is a burrito w/ free chips at burritosville. It's always exactly the same. I order a burrito (ok, i admit that i vary the type of burrito up), then get a plate of chips w/ their fresh salsa. I get the burrito and eat half. Then, i get up and get more chips, but with their spicey green sauce. The timing is very important. If i eat too much of the burrito, i feel self conscious about going up for more chips b/c 1) it looks like i'm mooching free chips and 2) it's admitting that the burrito isn't enough to fill me up (it's a huge burito). If i get the 2nd round too early, the spicy green salsa is going to make my mouth too hot, too early, and i'm going to fly through my soda. I'm not sure if refills are free, and i'm not about to ask. I get a paper while i'm there and pretend to read, but that's only b/c i don't like eating meals alone.

#2 in the rotation is Chicken fingers and fries from the cafeteria. I get this when i want to feel full, but feel guilty about spending 10 bucks on lunch. It comes out to only 3.90 and it's 7 big fingers with a full plate of fries. It does the job. I don't necessarily love the taste of this meal, but fries always has a warm spot in my heart. They are a perfect compliment for someone as socially awkward as me. When i'm eating with someone, fries allow me to pace myself with the speed by which they eat. When i'm alone, i can look down and focus on the dipping of the fries and pretend like i'm actually doing something. If we ever go to a diner, make a mental note that i will inevitably order something with fries. (exception: if they have a really big breakfast combo).

#3 make your own salad at the cafeteria. This is my "goal" every day at lunch. The problem is that, in order for me to make a salad worthy of my lunch, it winds up costing 7 bucks. At that point, i'm 3 away from a burrito, so what's the point?

#4 fancy burger in the cafeteria. I've had it twice. And yet that's #4 on my list.

#5 and #6: The two times i ate with my friend from lawschool. She picked both places. I enjoyed each meal, but the idea of having more choices has actually made me uncomfortable. Everyday i think "hmm, i should go get that gyro i had w/ elaine the other week, but....". I almost wish i didn't know of these other two places.

So, as you can see, i'm clearly not taking advantage of all the amazing choices for food in the city. People think i'm against trying new foods, as I've had indian and sushi for the first time w/in the past year. But, i think it's more than that. I just don't enjoy the taste of food enough to go through the efforts of discovering new things. I eat to get full. Sure, i like some meals more than others, but I can't remember ever crazing anything. If i ever get tired of the chicken fingers, i'm sure i'll be capable of moving on. But, for now, it's "good enough".

When I cook, i put absolutely no effort into the preperation of my meals. Microwaves are used instead of ovens, pasta is thrown into the pot before the water is boiled, and generally any and all shortcuts are taken. I think to myself "come on, there's no way i'll be able to taste the difference". And to be honest, i THINK i'm right. When the hell's kitchen chefs didn't realize that the fancy patte was really chopped up hotdogs and that the cheese sauce was actually cheese whiz, it got me thinking that palletes aren't as refined as people claim.

All of that being said, the act of eating is where it's at for me. I can still remember meals from decades ago and look back fondly. To piggyback poppasquat's post, here's my list of memorable meals.

- The turkey sandwiches during survivor series intermissions were particularly fun for me b/c it was fun watching/admiring Tony being in charge of something so adult. He'd confidently take the turkey out of the fridge and hack away with reckless abandon. I spent many a night on the floors of his bedrooms, but survivor series nights were probably the best.

- he remembers the "sack of cheese" from the turnpike, but for me, the better mcdonalds moments were when his mom (the once legendary Ma Z) would bring back a "pile" of mcdonalds food and just put it on top of the stove. You see, with three boys of various growing rates, and all of their friends hanging out, it would have been a futile attempt to figure out exactly how much to get. So, she'd just buy a little of everything and let it be a free for all. The best thing about a free for all is that, if you are shifty enough, you can get quite a good number of burgers in you w/o people keeping track. Hiding one wrapper inside another before you ball it is always the key.

- MV Deli: I don't know what was worse, discovering 40's or 3 dollar subs in our last month at Rutgers. Both discoveries changed my life. The sub was great though, b/c it was right around the block, and tucked away in a shady little convenience store. It was our little secret. The 40's were pretty much known to the world after all of the debauchery it caused.

There are more, but i'm blanking. I"m pretty tired. TBC.

*btw, her definiton of "living" consists of napping on the couch with tons of blankets and the heat turned on, but to each his own.

"just to fullfill their contractual obligation...." puh-lease  


I'm so tired of bands of blaming a decision on the fact that it's in their contract w/ the label. Well, technically, the first time, it was actually Steve defending Pearl Jam's greatest hits album by saying they probably just did it b/c it's in their contract. Now, DMB is doing it as well.

Unless you are dealing with Don Corleone, contracts aren't signed with guns to your head. The bands bargained for, and received, a benefit in exchange for their promises. You can't have it both ways.