The Electric Commentary

Wednesday, July 30, 2008


Here is the headline:

Council bans new fast-food outlets in South L.A.

And here is a quote from a member of the council in question:

I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options,

I'll assume that further explanation is not needed. Well, OK, one more quote:

This will buy us time to aggressively market the district and show potential developers that we are not only open for business, but have some substantive incentives to make it worth their while to develop in South L.A.

There is, after all, nothing that business like to see more than, um, shutting down businesses.

10 Things Brewers Fans Have Over Cubs Fans

1. We do not have Jay Mariotti.

2. Wrigley Field may have the worst food in all of sports.

3. We don’t have as many racist or homophobic T-Shirts.

4. We have Bob Uecker. You have Ron Santo.

5. Here are some actual lyrics from “Go Cubs Go”:

“Well this is the year and the Cubs are real
So come on down to Wrigley Field.”

They’re real! Just like Pinocchio! Also, “real” and “field” almost rhyme.

“Baseball season's underway
Well you better get ready for a brand new day”

Hey, why don't I just go and eat some hay. I can lay by the bay, make things out of clay, I just may, what'd ya say?

“So stamp your feet and clap your hands
Chicago Cubs got the greatest fans.”

Did they let Hawk Harrelson write that verse?

(For those who are unfamiliar with The Hawk, he is one of the TV guys for the White Sox, known for his excessive homerism and poor grasp of the English language. When an opposing batter strikes out he simply says “He gone.” He killed Lisa’s grammar robot, Linguo. He also has the worst home run call in the history of baseball. Yes, even worse than Ron Santo’s “Ooooooooooh yes!”)

6. The very best beer at Wrigley Field is Old Style. Ewwww.

7. We never let Ozzy Osbourne or Jeff Gordon sing. Instead we have sausages race.

8. We are allowed to have Friday night games.

9. Our crosstown rivals did not win a World Series in 2005.

10. Aside from all of the scapegoats used by Cubs fans (Bartman, Durham, Brant Brown, etc.) they actually blame and honest-to-god goat. It’s supposed to be a figure of speech, you idiots.

Bonus Thing Packer Fans Have Over Bear Fans

We may not know who our quarterback is, but we know he isn’t Rex.

On the season we’re 4 up, and 4 down. In the words of Al Bundy, let’s rock.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Sky Kid

This is Sky Kid.

I had this game for my old-school 8-bit NES. My best friend an I would play it all the time, but we had one major problem. (Besides that fact that playing lots of Sky Kid is kinda lame, but it was one of the few 2-player simultaneous games so cut me some slack.)

In Sky Kid, when you get to the end of a board you have to land your plane on a little landing strip. If you fly over the landing strip you run out of gas and crash into the ocean.

Somewhere around the 26th board, you get to the end of the board and there's no landing strip, All of a sudden you just crash into the ocean. I've never been able to figure this out, and sometimes, in my darkest moments, it drives me nuts. My friend even tried playing all the way through on an emulator in slo-mo, to no avail.

So, if anyone out there knows how to land on the 26th board in the NES version of Sky Kid, let me know.

Vampire Weekend

The Vampire Weekend pulled off the rare feet of producing an album that is outstanding from start to finish. Part Police, part Strokes, part Paul Simon, with a touch of Sublime, it's great summer music.

Here's M79:

And Oxford Comma:

And my personal favorite, Walcott:

Walcott, don't you know that it's insane, don't you wanna get out of Cape Cod...

Terrible News

Pandora, the internet's greatest radio site, may be shutting down.

Monday, July 14, 2008

“Of Course, The Packers Are Clearly Better With Brett Favre As Their Quarterback”

Just about everyone who has had anything to say about the Brett Favre situation has made some form of the preceding statement as part of their analysis. Sometimes they claim that Favre gives them their best shot at the Super Bowl. Often they claim that while they do not approve of Favre’s conduct, he is still their best shot at a winner. Well, let’s have a look, shall we?

1. Tee Martin, Peyton Manning

In many ways, Peyton Manning’s college career mirrors Brett Favre’s professional career. He won a ton of games, he set a lot of records, and he suffered from the occasional complete meltdown. His “can’t win the big game” reputation was always underserved, as the Vol defense would frequently put pressure on Manning to put up more and more points. That said, Manning was occasionally not up to the task.

The year after Manning graduated, the less-heralded Tee Martin would lead the Vols to a National Championship; something that the more talented Manning was never able to accomplish.

2. Joe Montana, Steve Young

First of all, to get some perspective on how good Joe Montana was, and wasn’t, I highly recommend Michael Lewis’s book The Blind Side.

After suffering an injury in a playoff game in 1990, Joe Montana saw Steves Young and Bono play all of 1991, with the Stormin’ Mormon eventually winning the Job. Young proved so impressive that before the start of the 1993 season, the 49ers traded their legendary QB to the Kansas City Chiefs. Young lived up to all of the hype, but was foiled on consecutive occasions by the Dallas Dynasty of the early 90s.

In 1994 Young finally pulled a few golden plates out of his hat, completing over 70 percent of his passes, winning the NFL MVP award, defeating the Cowboys and eventually winning the Super Bowl in a game in which he threw 6 TD passes.

Joe Montana still had a productive season in him, but no one questions that keeping Young was the right call.

3. Drew Bledsoe, Tom Brady

In 1996, New England Patriot QB Drew Bledsoe passed for over 4000 yards, 27 TDs against only 15 picks, while completing 60% of his passes. When the Denver Broncos were upset at home by the upstart Jacksonville Jaguars it opened the door for Bledsoe’s Patriots to face the Packers in the Super Bowl. Alas, Bledsoe played poorly down the stretch, eventually throwing 4 picks against a tough Packer defense.

Bledsoe continued to play fairly well for the Patriots, never putting up a passer rating under 75.6 and reaching as high as 87.7, until he suffered and injury in early 2001.

The rest, as they say, is history.

4. Don Majkowski, Brett Favre

Donald Vincent Majkowski’s excellent 1989 campaign bought him time with many a long-suffering Packer fan, as they were just barely eliminated from the playoffs on the last day of the season when the Vikings beat the Bengals. After 1989, Majkowski still played well in spurts, but frequent injuries led to many spot starts by the likes of Anthony Dilweg and Blair Kiel. Majkowski relied on scrambling, good decision making, and an adequate arm to be productive but as his skills started to erode he was knocked to the pine more and more.

That said, Majkowski’s job was secure until that fateful day in 1992 when was knocked out with an injured ankle. How many people thought Favre was the answer at the time? How many of you were genuinely worried about Donny Majik’s health, and figured the season was over without him?

5. Dan Marino, Jay Fiedler

You’re probably thinking that this one is going to be kind of stupid, and that I’m wrong about it. Here are a few numbers:

1. 55.3, 2448, 12, 17
2. 57.1, 2024, 14, 14

The first are Dan Marino’s 1999 stats for completion percentage, yards, TDs, and INTs respectively. The second are Jay Fiedler’s 2000 stats. By 1999 the great Dan Marino wasn’t the same player any more, but had you asked almost anyone if they would rather have had a 39-year-old Dan Marino or a 29-year-old career backup and Dartmouth alum named Jay Fiedler, most would have opted for Marino.

Fiedler was certainly not as flashy, but he was consistent, slightly more accurate, and in the end led the Dolphins to an 11-5 record (a two-win improvement) and an AFC East division championship.

6. Tommy Maddox, Ben Roethlisberger

In hindsight you might not remember just how valuable Tommy Maddox was. The former XFL MVP put up respectable numbers in both 2002 (62.1, 2836, 20, 16) and 2003 (57.4, 3414, 18, 17).

The young Ben Roethlisberger entered the 2004 season behind both Tommy Maddox and Charlie Batch on the depth chart, but injuries to Batch, and ineffectiveness and injuries to Maddox thrust Roethlisberger into the spotlight. There were the usual media clichés about Roethlisberger’s inexperience holding him back, however he went on to lead the Steelers to a 15-1 record while completing 66.4% of his passes, and throwing 17 TDs against just 11 picks. In 2005 Big Ben would lead the Steelers to the Super Bowl, where the Steelers would win even though he played like shit.

7. Troy Aikman, Quincy Carter, Anthony Wright, Clint Stoerner, and Ryan Leaf

A few people remember that Troy Aikman sucked for a brief period at the end of his career, but only a very few remember just how bad he was. Aikman never put up huge numbers like Young or Favre, largely due to their reliance on Emmitt Smith, but he was always efficient, accurate, and threw one of the nicer deep balls that you will see.

By 2000 Aikman had been beaten around quite a bit, and had suffered a number of concussions. The final concussion, caused on a vicious hit by LaVarr Arrington, ended his career, but Aikman may have been washed up anyway. In his final season he completed 59.5%, but his 6.2 yards per attempt were the lowest since his atrocious rookie year. Aikman also fired up an uncharacteristic 2 picks for every TD

You won’t find a quartet of QBs more pathetic than Anthony Wright, Quincy Carter, Clint Stoerner and Ryan Leaf, but if you pro-rate Troy Aikman’s injury-plagued final season to a full 16 games, you will see 59.5, 2374, 10 TDs, 20 INTs. The quartet managed a line of 50.8, 2408, 14, and 20. They certainly aren’t good, but they also did not play worse in 2001 than did Troy Aikman in 2000. Both teams went 5-11. Sometimes legends fade away, and sometimes they have their brains beaten in.

8. Hypothetical: Brett Favre, Matt Hasselbeck

Brett Favre is a legend, but what if he had been slightly less legendary and the Packers had opted to keep Matt Hasselbeck from 2002 onward? (Note, I am cheating a bit here by leaving out Matt’s somewhat injury plagued 2001 season, but this is a hypothetical, so I can do whatever I want. Consider this a disclosure.)

Matt Hasselbeck

2002 – 63.7, 3075, 15, 10
2003 – 61.0, 3841, 26, 15
2004 – 58.9, 3382, 22, 15
2005 – 65.5, 3459, 24, 9
2006 – 56.6, 2442, 18, 15 (12 games)
2007 - 62.6, 3966, 28, 12

Brett Favre

2002 – 61.9, 3658, 27, 16
2003 – 65.4, 3361, 32, 21
2004 – 64.1, 4088, 30, 17
2005 – 61.3, 3881, 20, 29
2006 – 56.0, 3885, 18, 18
2007 – 66.5, 4155, 28, 15

Would they have been much worse? Would they have been worse at all? Keep in mind that between 2001 and 2005 Shaun Alexander never rushed for fewer than 14 TDs and in 2005 rushed for 27 TDs, which depresses Hasselbeck’s raw totals. I am not saying that the Packers would have been better with Hasselbeck. Favre’s numbers are impressive in their own right. What I am saying is that had they discarded the legend, even a few years ago, they would not necessarily have been any worse off. It is also worth pointing out that Matt Hasselbeck’s Seahawks did make it to a Super Bowl in 2005 where Matt outplayed his counterpart Ben Roethlisberger in a losing effort. Also, the officials were terrible in that game.

It is not a given that the post-Favre era will be worse than the recent Favre era. Aaron Rodgers is unproven, but that does not mean that he is bad. The rest of the team is still very good and even if he’s only average this year they can still be a threat. The fact is that you don’t know what you’re getting in Rodgers, but anyone who says that Favre definitively gives the Packers their best chance doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

The 21-Year-Old Drinking Age Kills

The Associated Press has a fear-mongering article about underage drinking in which touts the same old tired talking points: More laws, more community involvement, more oversight of college students.

Let's say that you were unfamiliar with the statistics on underage drinking, and you were simply told that there was a substance called alcohol which was pleasant when consumed in moderation but dangerous when consumed to excess. You are also told that in this country we forbid people from having alcohol until they are 21 years of age, out of the house, and free from parental supervision. In fact, activist groups like MADD actively campaign against those under the age of 21 consuming any amount of alcohol with their parents.

If you were given these facts and asked to make a prediction, you would probably predict that deaths due to alcohol poisoning would occur as soon as drinkers moved out from under the control of their parents, and again, when they turned 21 and gained the legal ability to drink.

And you would be right:

Freshmen were found to be at greatest risk, with 11 of 18 freshmen deaths occurring during the first semester.

Walters said one reason is that freshmen are on their own for the first time and trying new things. Also, there is a mentality that "if you're under 21 and someone's got alcohol, you've got to drink it, because you never know when somebody's going to have it again."

One practice—drinking 21 shots on a 21st birthday—has proven especially lethal. Of the college-age deaths reviewed, 11 people, including eight college students, died celebrating their 21st birthdays.

If you have half a brain you can see that tragedies like this are caused by the 21-year-old drinking age, not prevented by it. People should learn to drink under the supervision of their parents. They should learn what alcohol does to you, how much is too much, and that drinking is not actually the big deal that the college atmosphere makes it out to be.

Instead we provide incentives for a bunch of inexperienced 21-year-olds (and 19-year-olds) to drink as much as possible with no supervision, no experience, and knowing that if they do actually need help and call for help, that they will be arrested.


Finally, if you happen to be looking around on the neo-prohibitionist MADD website you will find the following regarding the "myth" that Europeans are safer drinkers than Americans:

Perhaps the best example of fact versus myth when it comes to the “European Myth” is a look at what happened in New Zealand. In 1999, New Zealand lowered its purchase age from 20 to 18. Not only did drunk driving crashes increase, but youth started to drink earlier, binge drinking escalated, and in the 12 months following the decrease in legal drinking age, there was a 50 percent increase in intoxicated 18- and 19-year-old patients at the Auckland Hospital emergency room.

Clearly, Europe has serious issues with youth alcohol use.

Man, they must have been wasted when they wrote that. Or, alternatively, they may not have had any actual European examples.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Me, Myself, and Favre

Paul: Well, that was certainly a dick move to wait until almost all personnel moves were made - and made under the assumption that he was retired - to talk about possibly coming back.

Noonan: True enough, but we can't let that color our judgment going forward. It may be a dick move, but it presents us with another option, and probably a superior one. Are you telling me that you really prefer Aaron Rodgers to one of the greatest QBs of all time?

Paul: First of all, THIS Brett Favre is not one of the greatest QBs of all time. This Brett Favre was only the 3rd best QB in football last year by DPAR and DVOA, and finished 13th and 12th in those two categories just two years ago. And he's older. We're not comparing Aaron Rodgers to one of the greatest QBs of all time, we're comparing him to a league average-to-good QB who will turn 39 before the snow starts falling in GB.

I grant you that we don't know exactly what we have in Aaron Rodgers, but even if he's just average he won't be that big of a downgrade, and it is quite possible that he will be better than that.

Noonan: Oh come on Mr. I Hate Small Sample Sizes. What Favre's admittedly advanced age gives you is a lot of information, and that information leads you to the idea that he's better than Rodgers, who has been OK in pre-season, and pretty good in one half of professional football. And I might add that he has been injury prone.

Paul: But Favre is not free. If he plays again I believe he becomes their highest paid player again, whereas Rodgers is relatively cheap. Is Favre so much greater than Rodgers that the x-million dollars more, which could be used to add a free agent at a weaker position, is worth it? I think not.

And I don't just have small sample size. The Outsiders, and PECOTA's twin brother KUBIAK like Rogers a lot.

Noonan: KUBIAK is useful, but remember when you drafted Kevin Jones in the first round of your fantasy draft? And this isn't fantasy, this is real life. The Packers are strong at almost every other position, and most truly valuable free agents are already spoken for. Quarterback is the most important position on the field, and even a marginal upgrade is probably worth all of that money. QB is an area where good teams can become great.

Paul: Let me throw a few numbers at you:

1. 2001 54.8, 2023, 7, 8
2002 63.7, 3075, 15, 10
2003 61.0, 3841, 26, 15

2. 2005, 61.3, 3881, 20, 29
2006, 56.0, 3885, 18, 18
2007, 66.5, 4155, 28, 15

The first group are the year, completion percentage, yards, touchdowns, and interceptions of Matt Hasselbeck in his first 3 years as a full time starter. The second group are the same stats for Brett Favre over the last 3 years. I mention this because Aaron Rodgers is in a very similar situation. Hasselbeck was 26 in 2001 and Rodgers will be 25 in 2008. If this were the 26-year-old Hasselbeck instead of the current Aaron Rodgers, what would you do? Sure, his 2001 wasn't great, but he only played in 13 games, and he clearly improved every year after to the extent that it is likely he would have either matched or outplayed Favre in the following year, if we take these three as likely representations of what Favre might do. Frankly, that's being generous given his age.

Noonan: Yeah, maybe. But Rodgers isn't Hasselbeck. Moreover, while everyone is talking about Favre as possible trade bait, why not Rodgers? Remember, we just drafted Brian Brohm. You know, the Brian Brohm who started 3+ years in college and never put up a completion percentage under 63.6 (the two stats which correlate most closely with NFL success)? The Brian Brohm who is definitely a better prospect than was Aaron Rodgers?

Rodgers in a good prospect, but unproven. Favre is a known commodity, and this team is loaded. We can trade Rodgers to shore up the team, make a run with Favre, and if it doesn't pan out, we're still well-prepared with Brohm.

Paul: Ah, but we're assuming again that Favre is the best option this year. Remember, this team was created under the assumption that Favre would be gone. Planning, personnel, and training camp have all been based on this premise.

Moreover, I'm sick of Favre melting down. Most teams have bad days, but most players don't have as bad of days as Favre does. Very few players single-handedly cost their teams as many games as Favre does, and many of his great performances would be wins anyway. He has all those fourth quarter comebacks, but he's absolutely lousy in the last 5 minutes or so. Most of Favre's wins over the last several years have come while protecting leads, while many of his losses involve multiple ridiculous interceptions. He has upside, but some consistency on this team might be nice. Did I write that? Too many JoeChats this week.

Noonan: That's bullshit. Aaron Rodgers will have his bad games too, and plenty of less-than-stellar QBs cost their teams games. Rex Grossman, anyone? Favre is still capable of rattling off three or four good ones, and that is all you need in the playoffs.

Paul: Well, let's talk about the playoffs.

Last year Favre looked really shitty a few times. The first was against the Eagles in a game that they won on special teams. Philly has a good defense. The second was against the Bears in Lambeau, who have a really good defense even when they suck. The third was against the Redskins and Sean Taylor when Brett set the pick record. The next time was that memorable game in Dallas in which Favre sucked, got hurt, and watched Aaron Rodgers rally the team. He then looked shitty against the Bears on the cold day in Soldier, and finally, shitty against the New York Giants.

In short, he did not play well against good defenses, and a few times he melted down completely. The playoffs tend to feature teams with good defenses. How confident are you now?

And trade-wise, you could still get a lot by trading one good Favre year, and still have a pretty good tandem with Rodgers and Brohm, and if need be you can trade one of them later. Favre will be gone soon, whereas Rodgers may torture you for awhile if you trade him.

: But will Rodgers even get you there? This team is good, and over 16 games we can be confident that Favre will at least get us into the playoffs. As you well know, once you are in the playoffs, randomness takes over and anything can happen. Rodgers might be OK, sure, but what if he is a disaster? Favre covers your worst case scenario at the very least.

Paul: I'm not so sure. If you put a caretaker QB with this team (and I think Rodgers is better than that) I suspect they still make the playoffs. Favre is the ultimate high-risk, high-reward player. Look at his last 3 years above! What if he throws 29 picks again? And don't tell me it couldn't happen. He has a better team now than in 2005, but Favre can put up 20 picks in 5 bad games the way he plays.

The fact is that we are dealing with a great deal of uncertainty here, and the best way to mitigate against that uncertainty is to go with an easier-to-control Aaron Rodgers and use your cost saving to pick up another corner or offensive lineman.

Noonan: Brett is the most certain thing you have going. If he wants to play, you should let him unless your alternatives are named Brady or Manning.

(Censored) Water Torture

Let's say that you're ordered to torture people at Gitmo. How would you know what techniques to use? Is there some course you could take? Some manual? Well...

The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

Great! Problem solved. I can't help wondering though, where did these trainers get their materials?

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.


But surely, we made some changes, right? I mean, maybe we made these techniques more humane, or at least more effective in obtaining accurate information?

The only change made in the chart presented at Guantánamo was to drop its original title: “Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance.”

So, in addition to torturing people with techniques perfected by Chinese Communists over 50 years ago, we're also stealing their intellectual property. Awesome. That unfettered executive power is working out great.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

The JoeChat Conspiracy

If you read FireJoeMorgan regularly, you know that a staple of the site is the JoeChat, in which Ken Tremendous takes select Q&As from Joe Morgan's online chats and comments about just how uninformed, poorly written, and insane the answers are.

A funny thing has been happening lately. Fire Joe Morgan is popular enough that the people asking questions in JoeChats are only doing so to provoke an insane response from Joe. Popular methods of JoeBaiting include:

1. Asking about Gary Sheffield.
2. Using the word "consistency," possibly misspelled.
3. Using the word "concetrate," a misspelling of the word "concentrate."
4. Asking Joe about potential Hall of Famers, as Joe is on the Hall of Fame induction committee (or something like that) and believes that answering would be a conflict of interest or some such nonsense.

There are more, but you get the idea. Lately, almost every person asking a question has been JoeBaiting, and not asking a real question. Here is the latest. Ken Tremendous Schrute Schur is now openly questioning whether JoeBaiting is ruining JoeChats and, whether or not Joe Morgan (or more likely the guy who writes JoeChats, whom we call Bill Fremp because writing "the guy who writes JoeChats for Joe Morgan" takes too long) is messing with him.

If you just assume that Joe is actually writing these things then this seems implausible, as Joe Morgan is really stupid, and so I find this to be very unlikely. I have it on good authority that the only ESPN guys who actually write their own chats are the younger set, while guys of Joe Morgan's age farm it out to interns.

Before moving on, I should point out one other thing. Earlier in the year, during the "Fremp Era" it appeared that Joe had suddenly become somewhat smart (which is what led to the Fremp Theory in the first place). Keep in mind that if Joe is smart, then JoeChats are boring. Then keep in mind that just a few weeks ago on June 18th, 2008, Ken wrote this:

These haven't been that fun lately, frankly. They have their share of "consistently"s and "Sheffield"s and stuff, but in general, whether it's Bill Fremp or Joe getting better or something, the answers aren't that crazy and the jokes are starting to feel the same. So, this may be the last full JoeChat for a while. I may start just picking out individual moments or something...whatever. We'll play it by ear. It's a blog, after all, so we'll wing it.

So basically, Ken Tremendous threatened to quit doing JoeChats on June 18th. And on the very next JoeChat on June 23rd, look what happens. Joe is back to being insane. He can't use the correct form of "their" and "there." And he actually wrote this:

chad rochester ny : joe, do u think the yanks can pull it out and make the playoffs without wang, and if so who do u think will step up

Joe Morgan: Before Wong got hurt,

This cannot just be a typo. Take a look at your keyboard and note that the "a" is way over on the left, while the "o" is way over in the upper right. Also note that there is no baseball fan who does not know that his last name is Wang, because he's on the Yankees which means that his highlights take up the 50% of SportsCenter not devoted to the Red Sox.

And it's been getting crazier and crazier including the most recent JoeChat, which is completely insane.

We know the following:

1. ESPN does, in fact, employ young people, some of whom probably read sites like FJM and Deadspin and the like.

2. Joe Morgan probably does not do his own online chats.

3. JoeChats are only fun when Joe is stupid.

4. Joe, or Fremp, momentarily got smarter.

5. Ken Tremendous basically threatened to quit doing JoeChats.

6.Immediately after this threat, Joe became extremely stupid and completely insane (again).

7. JoeBaiting is so obvious at this point that only the worlds dumbest person would not notice it.

Conclusion: There is only one obvious conclusion. Bill Fremp, the ESPN employee charged with writing JoeChats, ostensibly representing what Joe Morgan would think and say, is actually a reader of FireJoeMorgan, and is writing the JoeChat specifically for comment by Ken Tremendous. I think Fremp was so horrified at the Prospect of FJM ceasing to comment on JoeChats that he decided to go all out with his Joe Morgan-inspired craziness. After all, if you were charged with writing JoeChats, which contain no insight and are largely pointless on their own, and you learned of the existence of FJM, which suddenly brings meaning to your work, and turns it into a sort of postmodern work of art, you would also probably fight to keep FJM interested in what is an otherwise dull activity.

Fremp, I've got you nailed. Sure you nominally work for ESPN, the Worldwide Leader, but I know your secret. In the darkest recesses of your brain, you work for a little blog run by 6 guys who like to critique sports journalism. And really, with your assignment I can't say that I blame you.

Amazon Logo