February 28, 2006

The Midyear 2002 Archive

July 5, 2002

Worst of the Slate will be on hiatus for the next two weeks, unless it isn't. (Yes, that was a great sigh of relief you just heard from Slate's writers.) WOTS apologizes it its loyal readers, particularly tho those who have claimed lately to include WOTS as part of their sex lives. WOTS hopes you get by for now without it. WOTS wishes its loyal readers a happy and safe holiday weekend!And may God Bless America, unless that is unconstitutional, in which case, Go America!

August 5, 2002

WOTS. Back In Brief.WOTS needs to point out a couple of huge WOTS victories. First, WOTS has been saying all along that Dally Lithwick needed to relax about Zach M., that indeed, he would turn out to be just like a regular defendant, and that indeed, our criminal justice system could deal with people like him just fine. Dally finally conceded the point in her kazillionith article on the subject, though WOTS thought it was unfortunate that she hid her concession in one sentence at the end of the article.WOTS note: according to a source very close to WOTS, kazillion is more than bazillion.WOTS trivia: Define Ka and Ba and tell WOTS where the terms come from. Second, the Sports Pages, Bryan Curtis's weekly irrelevancy/ cite to Jayson Stark, is no more! WOTS feels extra good about this one because the seedlings for WOTS were planted long ago when somebody wrote a false, non-researched piece about how Third Base was the worst position in baseball ever. Slate should demand a refund of Curtis's paychecks for the Sports Pages. WOTS theory: Sports Pages was killed now so it wouldn't have to embarrassingly cite to TMQ, the best football column out there and the worst mistake Slate ever made (by letting it go). Speaking of sports, Hugo Lindgren, who really is an awful sports writer, really got trashed in the Fray for his non-researched, error filled piece about second place teams. WOTS, who bows in appreciation, would also like to point out that in an article devoted to why teams perennially can't get over the proverbial hump, he failed to mention the Red Sox (second most wins ever, 1918). WOTS question: Did anyone ever actually see No No Nannette? Who?In other second place news (kind of!), Chatterbox accused Al Gore of a Whopper for a statement he didn't even make. Chatterbox needs to read his own rules or he needs to start blaming the WB for every Whopper Ari Fliescher tells. Anyway, Gore has been taken to task for so many things he never said, this is no longer much of a surprise. William Saletan, in the "no-duh" article of the week, must have been reading too many stories about West Nile virus, because aside from his discussion of the feeding habits of misquotes, he didn't exactly break any ground by saying that opposition party leaders tend to want to root around for bad things in their opponents' pasts. Or was he under a proverbial rock from 1992-2000? Virginia Heffernan didn't like another television show. Shocker. WOTSies may have noticed WOTS hasn't been around for a while. Summer malaise, not lack of material WOTSies. WOTS will be slightly sporadic for the next month or so, but as the dog days of summer wane, WOTS will be back in full force.WOTS question: Which dog best represents the "dog days" of summer?WOTS final question: Full Force. Bad rock band or bad action movie?WOTS thanks its loyal readers!

Worst of the Slate, vol. 18

Reports of WOTS's demise are premature. WOTS is back! Let's get right to it...In truly shameless episode of hypocrisy/flip-flop news, Dally Lithwick now thinks it is ok to let the American Criminal Justice System ("Prosecuting Evildoers Since 1776") deal with terrorists. After an endless series of flawed columns this summer (as WOTS pointed out) explaining why the ACJS could never deal with someone like Zacharias Moussaoui or terror nuts like him, WOTS applauds Lithwick for finally getting it right. But WOTS also remembers that after the endless series of flawed columns, when Zach decided "Hey, I don't really want to die now here, do I?" and wanted to plead guilty, Lithwick offered what amounted to a one sentence retraction of her entire flawed series of columns. This past week, she offers a dime store version of the argument she should have been making all along, an argument her critics, including many WOTSIES, made months ago. Weak.Robert Wright is finally done with his exhausting nine-inning series on terrorism (think Brewers-Devil Rays), which contained at least one reference to Star Wars (the major motion picture, not the dumb laser tag with nukes idea). If your haven't read it, it can be summed up as follows: 1) The world is a dangerous place. 2) If you hold hands with your neighbors, you might not get hurt, but you might die in a nasty way regardless. Real shocking stuff there, Rob. While we are summing up, lets' hit Shopping for this shocking news: Sugar good, Other Sweeteners, eh. What incisive journalism!It is time for Michael Kinsley to stop writing pointless articles. Mike's "time" piece was cute, but we expect more substance from the King of the Liberals, Slayer of Novak, and Destroyer of the Knights Who Say Knee Jerk. (Please tell WOTS you get that. Thanks.) WOTS note: Didn't you just love how during Bush's speech at the UN he vaguely referred to Hussein's plot to kill a former American President. WOTS's supposes he couldn't have said: "Hey, he tried to kill my daddy!"WOTS brand new recurring item of the football season: WOTS noticed former Slater TMQ was doing a little shilling for the 'ol environs this week by citing to a Slate article. Slate, which must disdain the day it let TMQ go (as TMQ has been the only legitimate sports column in Slatestory), has not chosen to return the favor two weeks into the football season. WOTS will pay attention to this development as the season progresses. So far: TMQ mentions: Nil. Movie at 11. WOTS sports predictions: The Florida Gators will defeat the Redskins this year not realizing they were not playing Florida State (did you see the new 'skins, um, duds?), however, Broward County will have Florida State defeating the Dolphins in baseball, despite exit polls indicating the Hurricanes knocked off the Marlins in jai-alai. Upon hearing this, Janet Reno will explode, unless that was just Illuminations.No need for a recount in TV land! Yes kids, after all this time, Virginia Heffernan still does not like television! In WOTS TV news, did anyone else think they were going to find Al Capone's stuff in the Great Pyramid Monday night? (WOTS thanks a WOTS staff member's close relative for that observation.) Potential WOTS "should-be-a-euphemism" of the year: "boinging simultaneously toward the hoop." Bryan Curtis couldn't hack it as a sports writer, so now they made him a movie critic? WOTS question: Does Mickey Kaus think he is accomplishing anything useful? If so, what?NyQuilissue of the Week: Steve Carter resigned from the President's Council on Bioethics. Oh, zzzzzzzzzz.WOTS Oxymoron of the Week: President's Council on Bioethics. WOTSIES all know that alleged former Fray editor Moria Redmond did not actually exist (after all, who would move back to England?). The staff of WOTS has been debating whether the alleged newer Fray editor actually exists. His bio cryptically notes that the "went to Harvard." As WOTS's limo driver noted, a lot of people "went" to Harvard (indeed, he said he went there many times to drop people off), but that didn't mean they attended school and graduated from Harvard. Anyway, WOTS's staff has come to a conclusion that J.D. Connor does exist, but that is not his real name. After WOTS's photo editor had one too many Jack and Cokes, he cast the deciding vote in favor of the idea that the Fray Editor's real name is D.J. Connor, its just that he didn't want to be associated with any character from Full House and isn't cool enough too pull of the Dr. J thing. Of course, WOTS's Broward County office is demanding more pizza. WOTS thanks its loyal readers!

Sept. 23, 2002

WOTS, high in protein, low in carbs!WOTS laughed when it read the headline "How close is Iraq to having a nuclear weapon?" Sure, WOTS thought, Mike O'Hanlon must know, what with all the classified information he has at his disposal! WOTS's own view is that since the Bush administration is not about to unleash its classified material, you either believe them that Iraq is close or you assume that tubing is all they got and don't believe them. In other war news, although Explainer seems to differ, WOTS thought war games involved putting a lot of armies on Kamchatcha and cutting east to gain entry into Europe through Iceland.In Supremes news (non-Ross version), the wonderfully named Avi Schick came up with this interesting legal notion: "Despite their plain language, however, some state courts have found that their Blaine amendment was not an absolute bar to all forms of state aid to religious schools." Hmmm, guess the language wasn't so plain after all, Schick?WOTS was temporarily excited by the Kausfiles headline: "Kausfiles achieves closure." Alas, Kausfiles still exists. Why on Slate, we have no idea.In not exactly Shakespeare news, "Poem" offered this line: "Her music-box antiphons mumbled us around the decades." Obviously.In sports, Hugo Lindgren offered reasons why Pat Ewing never won a championship. WOTS loves articles like this (and no just in Slate) because its so statistically ridiculous to assume he or anyone in any sport playing for the same team his whole career would ever win a championship. Its not like the Knicks had been on the cusp of greatness before he arrived. Ewing didn't win for the same reason no one else won during his time: Jordan. And when not Jordan, really bad luck. Period. Besides, he wasn't that good. WOTS's two potential "should be a euphemism" of the year candidates: "fissile material" and "worked the freakster vein." WOTS question for Beck reviewer Gerald Marzorati: Um, is Beck's new album any good? Couldn't tell. And, Ger, please lay off the italics. Thanks much. WOTS poll: "Tyco Kozlowski": linebacker or mad scientist? WOTS plea: Don't go to Zambia on your vacation please. Thanks. Defrocked sports writer Bryan Curtis did a movie review last week. This week its DVD reviews. Next week? 8-tracks!WOTS is hopping mad about what seems to be the demise of the "Best of the Fray" column. Listen D.J. (for those of you not paying attention, see last week's WOTS regarding his alleged name), "Fraywatch" is interesting in a SportsCenter kind of way, but we need our Plays of the Week too.WOTS's side-note person of the year nominee: The guy who jumped into the back of his carjacked pickup. WOTS continuing features:1) Ginny Heffernan still does not like television and this time, does not like football either!2) Slate is a perfect 0-3 in mentioning former best Slate column TMQ during the three week old football season. WOTS's pirate name is Iron Sam Cash. WOTS has no idea what that means.WOTS thanks its loyal readers!

Sept. 27, 2002

W to the rst o, S to the ate-lay. Qubbile with jour-nizzle coming from ill Ates-gay. WOTS in the h-ouse, dissin' Mickey K-aus, layin' down the law, takin' on No-aw. Give it up, yo, give it up yo! WOTS bringing heat down on Mickey O. O don't know, what O don't know, Ritter Raqis' finsley like Plotz n' Kinsely! Yeah, W to the rst-o, S to the ate-lay. Qubibile with jour-nizzle coming from ill Ates-gay! As you read on, please feel free to wave your hands in the air as if you just don't care. Thanks.In what is becoming a fun trend, Michael ("Mickey O") O'Hanlan asks another question this week he cannot possibly have the answer to. Last week it was "How close is Iraq to having a nuclear weapon?" This week it is "How many people would die in an Iraq war?" This is a trend worth watching. WOTS answer to this week's question: It depends how how tough the CNN camera crews look to the Republican Guard. WOTS wonders: Given all the fun CNN had last time round with Iraqi soliders who surrendered to their camera crews, one wonders whether FoxNews, MSNBC, and CNN will compete to see who can get the most Iraqis to surrender.WOTS proposal: Send those CSI guys to be the weapons inspectors. They find everything!WOTS noticed that no Slate writer has stated the real, actual, authentic, singluar reason that justifies a war with Iraq stated in one easy to understand sentence: America cannot risk that Hussein's WMD will get into the hands of terrorists somehow. Period. End of story. Thank you all and good night. In D.J. Connor news, D.J. noted about Slate's spate of Iraq articles: "If you want to read some of the better posts, but don't have time to page through them, you can start with the posts I append below the article." As of the time he posted this suggestion, WOTS noticed that D.J. had appended posts to only 1 of the 7 Iraq articles prominently displayed in Slate's banner section. Thanks for the suggestion though! WOTS, whose editor-in-chief was cited by D.J. after that lone article and later in Fraywatch (still miss BOF!), is perfectly aware that it is looking the gift horse in the mouth. WOTS query: Wouldn't "Spate" be a good name for a Slate competitor?In movie news, Dave Edelstein says "Moonlight Mile," which he intelligently calls "off" and "yuck," is the worst film of the year. Earlier this year he called MIB2 a "landmark Hollywood disgrace." So in case you are scoring kids, "yuck" is worse than "landmark Hollywood disgrace." In other tv news, didn't any of Slate's Soprano watchers, in their haste to criticize Meadow's shrink for agreeing with everything the young Meadow said, notice that after her visit to said shrink, Meadow signed up to go to school and not to go to Europe. Isn't that exactly what was supposed to happen after Meadow visited said shrink? In sports news, Tommy Scocca is happy to tell us that out of a couple billion people from Asia, those born there but living here, those born here but who have at least one parent who was born there, or whose parent was born here but whose ancestry was from there, those who sound like their name could be Asian, or those who just like a good Korean bar-be-que every now and again, including Jewish people who eat Chinese on Sunday nights, that a few of them happen to be really good at professional sports. Thanks for the memories Tommy.The always there "Other Web Sites" (might be illegal!) referenced two Slate articles this week. Sombody needs to remind "Other Web Sites" that "Other" does not mean Slate. NyQuilissue of the Week: Former mega-rich guy, now just rich, doesn't fund operazzzzzzzzzzzzz. WOTS question: Are the "pre-Celtic Minstrels" a former Boston basketball team?WOTS travel reminder: Please still do not go to Zambia on your vacation. Thanks.WOTS potential "should be a euphemism" of the year comes from Poems this week: "poking into frowsy leaf."WOTS continuing features:1) Ginny Heffernan, who does not like television, likes a TV awards show honoring television, going so far as to intelligently call the Emmys "totally great." In case you are still scoring at home, Slate's reviewers used "totally great," "yuck," "off," and "obnoxious" to decribe their subjects this week. Incisive! 2) Slate is a perfect 0-4 in mentioning former best Slate column TMQ during the four week old football season. WOTS is 20 editions old and would again, like to thank its loyal readers! Especially for putting up with WOTS's momentary hip-hop ambitions. Peace out!

October 4, 2002

Cheers! Proust! L'Chaim! Yamas! Salud! WOTS is 21.WOTS thinks its far too easy to begin with Hugo Lindgren's column claiming Jason Giambi is the problem with the Yankees (not that they have one). To paraphrase Valmont, "any of a dozen men could do it, I have my reputation think of." WOTS will note that this sad piece of "writing" is yet another in a long line of awful Slate sports articles which try to make some counter-intuitive point without any plausible argument or research to back it up. In war news, WOTS noticed that Slate's headline to its Iraq series, "Should the US invade Iraq?," is not the real question. The real question is "Should the US forcibly remove Hussein from power?" After all, we invaded Iraq the first time and look where that got us. In potential nasty death news, Jeffrey Goldberg gets his facts about the cancer causing bio-agent aflatoxin wrong when he argues for ousting Hussein. Goldberg is really concerned that Saddam has put some of this stuff on warheads that could be put on Scuds. Sounds bad! Except (as other fast WOTSies have noted) aflatoxin has to be ingested in order to cause the nastiness. So unless people EAT the Scuds, aflatoxin doesn't sound like something to worry about. Goldberg actually spends much of the article saying what he would not do: "I do not want, in this space, to rehearse the arguments for invasion.," he says. "There is not sufficient space, as well, for me to refute some of the arguments . . .against intervention", he adds. He also "will not recite the statistics, or recount the horror stories here." Now that we've got that straight. WOTS suspects Goldberg would not eat a Scud either.WOTS question: Do Scuds taste like chicken? Also why do we say "a nice Caesar salad" but not a "nice mixed field green salad" or a "nice garden salad"?Elsewhere, Bill Saletan glosses over a key point in his piece on the Senate Iraq debate. Saletan notes "Several [Senators] ask whether anyone doubts that terrorists would use Saddam's nukes against us if they got them." WOTS would like to know who those Senators are and congratulate them. As WOTS noted last week, this is the singular justification for war and has been ignored by almost everyone in the debate, including Slate's writers. Just when you think Saletan might pick up on this, he drops the ball, saying "Nobody explains why Saddam would hand them over." WOTS knows that Saddam would not necessarily need to hand them over for the neighborhood terrorists to get a hold of them. WOTS thinks it is more likely than not that if Saddam gets nukes, those nukes will someday somehow (but soon) get into terrorists hands. Shame nobody at Slate has addressed this point yet.In blog news, Bloggy Kaus admitted again this week that much of his material about the economy was already discussed in another blog which he was "pretending" not to have read. WOTS thinks this is like a hack comedian using another comedian's jokes. In fact, WOTS will now refer to this writer as "Banya Kaus." In massive philanthropy news, Jackie Shafer says Walter Annenberg was a "rotten bastard" but spent most of his article describing Annenberg's father. As if its Walter's fault that his dad was a rascal? WOTS thinks anyone who gives away his kazillions (more than a bazillion according to a source WOTS thinks the world of) can't be all bad, particularly if they give it to WOTS. In math news, Jordan Ellenberg submits a questionable but certainly flawed (which he slightly admits) argument that grade inflation is ok. WOTS knows the real problem with grading is the bell curve, which WOTS thinks gives a grade for the sake of giving a grade, not as a means to identify the particular intelligence of a particular student. In toy news, Dan Gross opines it could be "disastrous" for retailers if they can't stock their shelves with toys in time for Christmas. Shocker! Carol Kino said the New York Museum of Sex opened to the public last weekend. Um, no, Carol, it didn't. (WOTS thanks its limo driver for that info.) Also, is it ever possible to write and article about nudity without using the word titillate?WOTS question: What is tat?WOTS potential "euphemism of the year" that is pretty old but still good: "Borking."NyQuilissue of the week: Wine spitting. Seriously. That subject also provides a WOTS potential worst line of the year: "My method of spitting has always been more or less indistinguishable from my approach to vomiting" Good to know!WOTS question: What wine would be best spit with a nice Caesar salad and some Scud?In a shocking turn, Ginny Heffernan actually seems to like a television show, CSI: Miami, but does not like two of the three female leads or the way they light the male lead. A closer look at the review reveals that Heffernan likes the camera work most, which as WOTSies know, is a glowing review from Ginny.Slate is now 0-5 in mention former Slate column TMQ during the football season. Finally, an important heads up for all you WOTSies. Unless it doesn't, WOTS will be giving out its first annual "Worst of the Slate Awards" sometime in December. Between now and then, WOTS would love to hear your input about possible categories, nominations, and other ideas. WOTS also needs a catchy name for the "Worst of the Slate Award." If WOTS's Awards Committee goes with your suggestion, which should be posted below, you will win a cool prize to be determined by WOTS's crack Marketing department. WOTS thanks its loyal readers!WOTS update: This just in! Carol Vinzant says that research bears out the notion that since 1900 the stock market has done better when Dems control the White House. Sounds interesting. but don't believe it. It doesn't matter whether the research says since 1900 the market does better when lime green space aliens control the White House. Why? Because the sample size (the number of years it would take to accurately discover an actual trend and not just coincidence) of 100 years is way to small for the number to be statistically meaningful. Plus, the market really did not begin to function in a "modern" way until after the SEC Acts in 1933 and '34, which would cut the already bad sample size by a third. Thanks for playing Carol!

October 14, 2002

WOTS. Will march with the Sopranos.In Big Apple news, Timmy Noah committs a common journalistic error when he imposes the views of one writer (Frank Rich) on the entire city of New York. Based only only Rich's piece, Noah also claims York "is going through a bout of tremendous anxiety brought on by the declining stock market" and is "culturally demoraliz[ed] . . .to live off handouts from Washington, D.C." First, WOTS knows that one writer's view of things can't be imposed on an entire city. Second, anyone with a 401K is "going through a bout of tremendous anxiety" and although New York is the center of business, many of the headlines making financial meltdown have been happening to Southern based companies. As for his alleged main point, that New York is the capital of the world, not of America, Rudy Guiliani (and others) have been saying that for years. So what does Noah really add? That New York is different than D.C.? Stunning revelation!WOTS note to Steve Landsburg: People either don't think there is a B, or think B has plenty of money to give away else why would B voluntarity be tripling your donation for no apparant reason. The whole thing comes back to the simple maxim that its easy to spend other people's money. In potential nasty death news, Fred Kaplan, when discussing the differences between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Iraq situation, forgets to mention the biggest difference between them is that, um, the Soviets actually had some nukes. To sum up, Kennedy was acting to stop real nukes from being aimed at us 90 miles away from Flordia. Bush is acting to prevent nonexistent nukes from being created half a world away. Not even close, and much further than Kaplan suggests.WOTS's misleading headline of the week "Why you shouldn't watch Monday Night Football." The article actually suggests not that you shouldn't watch it, just that you should listen to the radio version while you are watching it (and hopes they will do something about the time delay). With all due respect, any sports writer who would tell you not to watch Monday Night Football should be forced to endure a never ending smorgasboard of Steve Landsberg's economic hypotheticals. WOTS's almost but not quite of the week: Jack Shafer's J-school article mentions Greg Easterbrook but not TMQ (kinda like mentioning Wayne but not Batman). So, Slate is now o for 6 in mentioning its former best column during the football season. WOTS news item: Sex sometimes causes life also. Or, as Bill Saletan might say "Any man who inseminates a woman has signed up for the responsibilities of fatherhood." WOTS forgets: Wasn't that the 12th Commandment?In ad news, Rob Walker reports that the number one show on prime time television, Friends, gets the advertisers excited. Shocker!WOTS question: Rachel, Monica, or Phoebe?In sniper news, WOTS has no doubt that Lucas Miller is a fine, upstanding detective. But when he says "Ultimately, the witness description about a small box truck likely provides the best chance of catching the sniper," surely he must have forgotten the possibility that the best chance of catching the sniper is that someone sees said sniper try to shoot at somebody in the future. WOTS was on the highways this weekend. Lots of white box trucks. WOTS note: Don't ever call a detective "officer" or refer to him as a "policeman." Trust WOTS. Virginia Heffernan reviews a map of the world and doesn't like it. Man is she picky. WOTS contest for NyQuilissue of the Week: "Is David Thompson too intelligent to be a film critic?" or "Glen Gould's Goldberg Variations." Ok quick! Which of the following lines belongs to which article: 1) "To aspire to a world of vibrations and undertones and to live in it are not the same thing." 2) "the harmonic language seems poised on the verge of incoherence without ever falling over." WOTS knows it doesn't matter. WOTS question: Is it possible to live in a world of vibrations and undertones poised on the verge of incoherence without ever falling over? Also, if you do live there, what have you been drinking?WOTS question: Anybody else love the name Mim Udovitch?WOTS religious question: If oysters are not animals, can those who keep kosher now eat them? If so, which ones should they try first?WOTS note to D.J. Connor: If you are going to have a contest, give a prize and tell us what it is going to be beforehand. It's just plain common courtesy, and we know Gates has the bucks for something good too. Oh, and cut it with this "Independent Contractor" stuff. Are you looking for Fray cred or do you really think people care about the legal status of your employment? Happy Columbus Day! Unless you hate Columbus!WOTS thanks its loyal readers.

October 28, 2002

WOTS. Signed, Sealed, Delivered.WOTS dumb headline/bad timing of the week: "Should we pay off the D.C. sniper" appeared as the main pictured lead on Slate's homepage well into the day after the sniper was caught, making the answer to the question really, really easy. Anyway, Davey Plotz compares the notion of paying off the sniper to appeasing Hitler and the Reagan era arms for hostages deal. Seriously, kids, don't try this at home. Plotz's piece is also up for a WOTS "bad timing of the year"award. At 3:54 PM on the day the police identified the suspects and about 12 hours before they were caught, Plotz said "the police still don't seem to have a single meaningful lead" and "all indications are that he can continue killing and the police can't stop him." Woops. He also said the sniper "has destroyed Halloween," which WOTS thinks was a little presumptuous to begin with considering Halloween was more than a week away. In over analyzing news, traveller Alexandra Fuller watches a Navajo woman spin yarn into artistic designs and "leaves her" five dollars for watching. Fuller thinks this is cultural prostitution. WOTS has a few points: First, was the woman charging people to watch her or did Fuller just feel guilty for some reason? If it was the later, Fuller's problem is with herself. Regardless, WOTS doesn't see anything wrong with someone trying to make a living by engaging in their traditional cultural arts. Or would Fuller rather she worked in a casino? WOTS sees very little difference between the Navajo woman and the cannon firers and blacksmiths at Williamsburg, except that at least she is authentic and is trying to preserve her culture. To top it off, if Fuller thinks this was cultural prostitution, then she is the "John" and her getting paid for writing the article is like a John selling video tapes of his encounter. Will Fuller return her paycheck? Doubt it.WOTS potential "review of the year": Chris Sullentrop sums up Kim Jong il as a "fat bastard." WOTS is sure the State Department will eat that analysis up.Hugo Lindgren's dispatches about the World Series games have appeared in the mid afternoon (3:05 PM EST) or early evening (6:55 PM EST!) on the day after the game, when everything important about the game has already been said. Perhaps realzing this, Lindgren instead talks about beer commercials, theme restuarants, and seedy bars. Hugo isn't covering the World Series, he's covering himself going to bars. Thanks Hugo. Does Slate pick up your drink tab?WOTS question for discussion: Is there any realistic way to ban the intentional walk?WOTS sports note: Congrats to WOTS's sports editor for successfully predicting the winner of the World Series (though he said 6 games, not 7). That makes him 2-2 in predictions, having previously got the winner and final score of the World Cup final. Speaking of Lindgren, WOTS's editing error of the week goes to D.J. Connor for citing to Hugo Lindberg (who?) and for calling the FDNY the NYFD. Apparently D.J. wasn't paying attention to the baseball caps. WOTS questions: Doesn't D.J. have an editor, and if so, shouldn't the editor be, um, editing?In tv news, Ginny Heffernan has this to say about a certain show: "It's no accident that I'm talking about this show as if it's art, lifesomething with gravity." She also thinks the show has a "moral crux." The show, ladies and gentlemen, is about dogs. On an entertainment side note, WOTS would like to add Thandie Newton to its "family organization," if you know what WOTS means.WOTS lament: If only Monica had been wearing Lee Performance Khakis . . . WOTS thanks its loyal readers!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home