Those who aren't regular readers or don't read the comments may well question why I went to the trouble to rebut a four year old article. One reader put it like this in his email entitled "Are you an idiot?":
The article is 4 years old. You go up to 2007 idiot. Yes, I can refute everything George Bush did 4 years ago. I have some other things you can investigate that have the same currency:Are the "Swift Boaters" right? Is the invasion of Iraq justified?Since it take 5 years for the oil from new drilling to get to market, shouldn't Bush want to open up closed areas for drilling now? Will the Red Sox ever break the curse of the Bambino? What about the White Sox? (Who cares about the Cubs?) If the Academy didn't create the "Animated Feature Film" category could "Million Dollar Baby" hold off "Shrek 2" as easily as "Finding Neverland?" Will Jamie Foxx win for his performance in "Ray" despite or because of past snubs of black actors? Gee, will viewers miss cartoon network's Toonami?
Thanks for your email, William. My best response is: just because a lie is old and out of date, doesn't mean that people don't still believe it. And yes...I'm an idiot for spending about ten hours on something just because JC baited me. I'm sort of like Marty McFly in that respect. One of these days someone will goad me into some reckless blog race, and I'll crash into a truck, injure my hand and never be able to type again. Will I ever learn?
Dungy comments on the Favre situation. Mike Floria thinks that's weird. I'm sort of torn about this. Honestly, it is a little weird. On the other hand, the media keeps calling to ask him about things, and I've long thought the whole 'no comment' thing was weird. In general, I think people should go ahead and express what they think. It's more weird that someone would call Dungy to ask him about the situation than it is for him to comment on it. Ultimately, if someone asks you a direct question, you should answer it. It's the responsibility of the questioner to question the relevance of the question.