In the Papers


I’m just trying to figure out which is the bigger joke: the front page wood of the Daily Trentonian (above), or this deranged editorial in the New York Times. A taste of the latter:

One effective punishment ought to be a roll of dishonor. If the commissioner’s office determines that Mr. Clemens was using performance-enhancers during the seasons he was voted best pitcher, that should preclude his election to the Hall of Fame. Records achieved while a player was relying on chemical assistance, should be prominently marked with an asterisk — to signify that the achievement was less praiseworthy than it seems.

Asterisks for everyone! Did they even glance at the report?

8 comments… add one
  • I can’t believe they freed that baby killer Roger Clemens!
    And they thought the Mitchell Report wouldn’t prompt intelligent discussion.

    Nick-YF December 14, 2007, 3:06 pm
  • Partly cloudy?! Totally off-base!!

    SF December 14, 2007, 3:09 pm
  • I don’t think I’ve ever read the Trentonian, and now I am certain that I never will.

    attackgerbil December 14, 2007, 3:21 pm
  • Totally off base and out of line…
    But a tiny bit funny, in a childish sort of way.

    LocklandSF December 14, 2007, 3:22 pm
  • This asterisk proliferation will just turn out like the Sneetches, where everyone wants stars upon thars.

    Devine December 14, 2007, 3:22 pm
  • Star-bellied sneetches, yellow-bellied snitches, the Mitchell Report has it all!
    “Records achieved… should be prominently marked with an asterisk — to signify that the achievement was less praiseworthy than it seems.”
    A record is a record – not an award. It isn’t inherently worthy of praise; it just IS. You’d think the Paper of Record would know the difference.

    FenSheaParkway December 14, 2007, 3:37 pm
  • Tyler Kepner has a brief, far more interesting and thought-provoking read on the Times web site.

    attackgerbil December 14, 2007, 3:44 pm
  • I’m completely ok with asterisks… as long as we’re fair. Everyone before, say 1950, should have one for getting to compete in a whites-only (or mostly white) league. Everyone in the 60s and 70s should get one for being part of the amphetamine era. So there are something like 8-9 years when we’d go without. Let the great record-book editing begin.

    soxgirl December 14, 2007, 3:48 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.