Today's Musical Selection: "Oh Boy" by Buddy Holly
Hey there, everybody! Well, I've finally returned to a normal orbit after the excitement of yesterday. That means it's time for our usual gumbo of witless, uninteresting bits of information strung together in random fashion. Let's get started!
First off, to all you Yankee fans out there: I told you so. When the Yanks dumped Jose Contreras on the White Sox in exchange for Esteban Loaiza, fans of the Bombers were too busy tap-dancing with joy over Contreras' departure to notice or care about Loaiza. But in my Pulitzer-Prize-winning trade-deadline review, I warned everyone that "Esteban Loaiza does not constitute an improvement. In his entire maddening and disappointing career, Loaiza has had one truly impressive season, which was last year. This year, his ERA is around 5.50, and he's shown the exact same inconsistency that so infuriated [Yankee fans] in Contreras."
Didn't believe me, huh? Well, three starts into the Esteban Loaiza Era, the Yankees are already looking to dump their prize new acquisition. Current scuttlebutt is that they're trying to foist Loaiza off on Texas, a team whose rotation consists, at last check, of Kenny Rogers, Ryan Drese, Gaylord Perry, the late Warren Spahn and the San Diego Chicken (acquired in a waiver-wire deal from the Padres in exchange for a mascot to be named later). Worse yet, Scott Erickson is also involved. So the Rangers just might be desperate enough to take a flyer on Loaiza.
To check the pulse of Yankee Nation, I consulted with the Yankee fan I know best, my dad.
MF: So, Dad, how's Loaiza working out for you?
DAD: Mmpf. Well, who cares? We just took him so we could get rid of Contreras. That alone was worth it.
MF: Have you noticed that Loaiza pitches about the same as Contreras?
DAD: Mmpf. Give him time.
MF: Sure thing. The Yankees are famous for being patient, right? In fact, George Steinbrenner loves Loaiza so much that the Yanks are trying to dump him already.
DAD: Really? Someone else would take him? Who?
MF: Texas. They're desperate.
DAD: Well, great! What are we getting back? Maybe their second baseman [Alfonso Soriano].
MF: Ha ha ha. No.
DAD: Well, what, then?
MF: Some minor-leaguer. Anyone, pretty much. Maybe a bag of used baseballs.
DAD: Mmpf.
Actually, the minor leaguers that the Rangers are discussing in exchange for Loiaza aren't that bad. Still, I do believe I called this one. You can thank me later.
Tip of the hat to my man Frinklin, who's written up some entertaining fashion reviews of NFL uniforms. Part one was the AFC, part two the NFC. Both parts are well-written and enjoyable, and Frinklin demonstrates good taste in uniforms, apart from an inexplicable fondness for the sixth-grade-art-project-gone-haywire uniforms of the Tennessee Titans. Check him out.
I also want to welcome to my blogroll the Mrs. Frinklin, and her blog Both Hands. I couldn't agree with her more about the relative merits of Macaroni Grill and Olive Garden. They're both Italian chain restaurants, but Macaroni Grill is far superior. Go figure. (Incidentally, at the risk of reigniting the chains-vs.-independents debate, I would like to point out that the worst Italian meal I ever had was not at a chain, but at an independent, Luigi's in Williamsburg, Virginia. It's probably not there anymore. I hope it was firebombed by angry customers.)
I'm a little ticked off about this Slate swing-state profile on Oregon. The article itself is fine; Chris Suellentrop does a fine job documenting the increasingly hard-left drift in Portland and the disconnect between Portland and the rest of the state. However, the teaser for the article reads, "Is it so progressive that Kerry could lose it?" And the answer, as spelled out clearly by Suellentrop, is a resounding "No." I understand that the point of the "Swingers" series is to examine the scene in states that were tightly contested in 2000 (and Oregon was, largely thanks to Mr. Nader). But this particular teaser feels awfully cheap. Come on, Slate, you're better than that.
I also recommend, somewhat belatedly, Roger Simon's column on Governor McGreevey of New Jersey. Simon provides an excellent analysis of the situation, and he had a read on the situation very similar to mine. Worth taking a look at.
Last night I somehow wound up watching Jim Rome's bad TV show. Don't ask me how this happened. Late-night TV is truly a vast wasteland. At any rate, I recall having watched his show at its debut, and finding it pretty bad. The only thing that I felt it had going for its was the name, "Rome is Burning," which I thought was a pretty cool and clever name. Too bad it didn't come along with a better host.
At any rate, I saw his show last night, and he's changed the name! Now it's "Jim Rome is Burning." It destroys the whole joke! "Rome is Burning" is witty; "Jim Rome is Burning" feels put-on and stupid. How is it that, when a show has only one thing going for it, you throw that away? (Not the first time, either; the promos for his show when it debuted had some cool music that they didn't use in the show. How big a moron is Rome, anyway? Wait, don't answer that.)
I was hoping that, maybe, it would turn out that someone had trademarked the phrase "Rome is burning" and ESPN was forced to change it due to a lawsuit. But no, according to Fritz Quindt, they did it on purpose, "to foster clearer association with the star." How stupid can you be? Did anyone with a brain not see the title "Rome is Burning" and immediately conclude that Jim Rome was involved? Anyone who couldn't figure that out isn't smart enough to turn on their television.
That's all for this week. I promise to try to be less self-absorbed next week. See you Monday!
Posted by Fred at August 20, 2004 05:06 PM