Category: default || By jt3y

Today's New York Post: "Damned Yankees" and "What a Choke."

Today's New York Daily News: "The Choke's on Us" and "Hell Freezes Over."

Today's Long Island Newsday: "Biggest Collapse in Sports History."

Nice to know that New Yorkers aren't fair-weather fans.

While I don't really have much of a rooting interest in the American League, in general, I'm a fan of two major-league baseball teams: The Pirates and whoever is playing the Yankees. So besides being delighted that the Red Sox were able to come from three games down in a best of seven series, it's nice to see the Yankees get what they so richly deserve. As well as the crybaby New York media. The callers on WFAN (660) must have been apoplectic last night.

Where's Bob Prince when Boston needs him? "They had 'em all-ll-ll-ll-ll-ll the way."

And Kerry must be happy; if the Boston Red Sox can beat the Yankees, maybe there's hope for the rest of the Boston Brahmins. Not to mention the fact that the Yankees are undeniably a Republican party team (the hapless, perpetually disorganized Mets are unquestionably a Democratic team).

Although there's another omen --- does this mean that the "red states" will beat the "blue states"? Alert CNN! I think this is the indicator that they've been looking for!

(Cut me some slack: Is predicting the presidential race on the basis of "Red Sox vs. Yankees" any more unscientific than most of the national polls?)

Anyway, speaking of the Man from Massachusetts, I caught part of his rally on the radio yesterday, although I had to get out of the car before he spoke. Poor Joe Hoeffel sounded great; too bad for him he's getting next to no support from either the state or national parties. I heard Ted Danson, too --- eh? What's the matter, was John Ratzenberger busy?

Yes, I know Danson's a CMU grad, but I'm not sure why I should care that much about what the guy from "Cheers" and "Becker" has to say about public policy --- or what any other celebrity thinks, for that matter.

I did think it was funny when Danson mentioned his father, who was a Republican, and the crowd booed. Folks, you were booing his dad. Them's fightin' words. Who would have blamed Danson if he had leapt from the stage and started clocking people?

"No, no, he was a good Republican," Danson said. How can you tell a good Republican? Do they look like Glenda, the Good Witch in "The Wizard of Oz"? Maybe bad Republicans wear striped socks. Someone dump a bucket of water on Karl Rove and see what happens.

And then we came to Franco Harris. Pittsburgh's beloved Franco Harris. What can I say about Franco Harris, an idol of my kidhood, except that public speaking ain't his strong suit.

I particularly liked his attempt to mention every college that could potentially have students in the crowd: "How many people here from CMU? And Pitt? A lot of people here from Pitt? And Carlow? And Chatham? How about Penn State?"

It sounded like some jokers in the crowd booed Penn State, by the way --- at least they didn't start chanting "Penn State Sucks" --- forgetting, apparently, that Franco is a PSU grad.

In case some Republicans want to use Franco's remarks in an attack ad, as best as I could tell, he forgot Robert Morris, La Roche, CCAC and Duquesne. Oh, and Poland --- he forgot Poland.

A couple of people who did attend the rally told me they were disappointed that Kerry's remarks weren't more "inspiring." First, this is John Kerry (or as he's known to Almanac readers, "Yawn Kerry") we're talking about. Steady? Yes. Resolute? I think so. Smart? No one seems to question that. But inspiring?

Um. Well. Kerry. Inspiring ... how 'bout those Red Sox?

Second, it's a political campaign, not the March on Washington, and he's no Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He's not even Reverend Lovejoy, for goodness sake.

Speaking of clergy (boy, the segues just keep on comin', don't they?), there's other good news to report today. Common-sense appears to be busting out all over, as a group of Catholic priests in the Pittsburgh diocese take out an ad in the Pittsburgh Catholic urging the faithful not to be single-issue voters.

As Ann Rodgers points out in the Post-Gazette, Bishop Wuerl has "stopped short of saying it is the only issue on which Catholics should base their vote. And memos that leaked from the Vatican this summer also stopped short of saying it is always wrong to vote for a candidate who supports legal abortion."

According to Rodgers' story, Susan Rauscher, the diocese's secretary for pastoral and social concerns, says that for a Catholic to vote for a candidate specifically because they support abortion, the vote would be "problematic. ... However, if you vote for a candidate who happens to support abortion, but your conscience moves you to vote for that candidate for other reasons, that falls into another category."

A group of liberal priests are scheduled to hold a news conference this week calling on Catholics to "obey your conscience" when voting.

Poor misguided fellows. Apparently, they're members of the reality-based community.

Sadly enough, and to tie the subject back to Franco Harris, neither the bishop nor the Vatican have yet made an official ruling on the Immaculate Reception.

Finally, I mentioned David Craig Simpson's "I Drew This" a while back. Why doesn't this guy have a syndication contract, while Ted Rall does? The titles are mine, by the way:

Oct. 21, 2004: Bush questions Kerry's judgment

Oct. 19, 2004: Will Kerry raise taxes?

Oct. 14, 2004: The mainstream press: Watchdogs of objectivity

Oct. 6, 2004: Liberals: Full of vile hatred