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?
I can’t believe they freed that baby killer Roger Clemens!
And they thought the Mitchell Report wouldn’t prompt intelligent discussion.
Partly cloudy?! Totally off-base!!
I don’t think I’ve ever read the Trentonian, and now I am certain that I never will.
Totally off base and out of line…
But a tiny bit funny, in a childish sort of way.
This asterisk proliferation will just turn out like the Sneetches, where everyone wants stars upon thars.
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.
Tyler Kepner has a brief, far more interesting and thought-provoking read on the Times web site.
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.