Just a technical note here: I've been having issues with the site all day when using Chrome. (Had to log in with IE to post this.)

And just so this isn't a totally wasted post.... has anyone confirmed that John Henry is rushing to the Sports Hub studios to emphasize that he was NOT in favor of purchasing the light fixture that caught on fire today, and sadly announcing that as a result of the fire the team and Fenway Park will be parting ways, as a "new soil" was necessary in the wake of such unacceptable flammability?

First, the incident was in Wellesley. It was a kindergartner in an after school program who was put on a METCO bus by mistake. And at the time, the gist of the coverage was "did these people just assume that any black kid in Wellesley was METCO?" -- i.e. the precursor was also a racial issue.

Second, that's a defense? Because there's a similar issue, it's okay to say that a gorilla would be mistaken for a METCO student and bussed to Lexington? Where's the mistake? "Chink in the armor" is a phrase that has meaning independent of any racial connotations. Does METCO bus gorillas around Boston, such that confusing a gorilla and a black METCO student is a "slip of the tongue" or a "double meaning" issue? That's patently idiotic.

Also, let's not forget that EEI did NOTHING until BC/BS of MA pulled advertising revenue because D&C hadn't been punished. Then they got their slap on the wrist. Again, this just further supports Bruce's point -- EEI has no credibility on this issue.

But I'm going a step further than him: I'm saying, explicitly, that EEI has no credibility because WEEI deliberately, as a programming strategy, caters to the racist inbred moron faction of the area's sports fans. They are intentionally attracting listeners who likely not only don't find the gorilla comment (or, arguably, the ESPN Lin comment) offensive, but agree with those characterizations.

Also, let's all be honest here: until Josh Beckett apologizes for ESPN's comments, none of us will be satisfied.

You make many good points here, Bruce, and I agree with your thesis. But in point of fact, the D&C incident was very different than ChinkInTheArmorGate, and isn't comparable at all. As the Poynter article discusses, CITAG was sloppy use of a cliched phrase that had a double meaning in the context of Jeremy Lin, but which wouldn't have triggered any notice whatsoever had it been a comment about, say, Michael Vick playing poorly for the Eagles.

Dennis and Callahan's comments were direct, overt, incontrovertible racism. There was no "mistake" there. The only "mistake" was saying what they thought on the air -- their comments were knowing, intentional, and had only one meaning inherent to them. D&C was much, much, MUCH worse than what ESPN did. If the ESPN headline had been "Me So Solly, Chinee-Chinee Boy Not Play Defensee Good: Knicks Drop Game to Hornets on Defensive Miscues by Lin" -- now we're on D&C grounds.

So you're correct, Bruce, in your view that EEI has no credibility whatsoever on this issue, but not because they refuse to address the D&C issue. It's because D&C still work for that station after intentionally making such nakedly racist slurs on the air. Clearly it doesn't matter what's said on their airwaves so long as people listen. And D&C get good ratings -- because I doubt many, if any, of the D&C listeners were taken aback by what they said, and many probably thought it wasn't offensive at all.

You're on the mark, LTD.

All of the football (soccer) spending talk is absolute BS being spouted by people who know NOTHING about business. John Henry and FSG do not "spend" on the Red Sox -- THE RED SOX ARE INSANELY PROFITABLE FOR THEM (largely because of the significant fraction of NESN they own). Arguments about "oh, FSG is spending too much on Liverpool which hurts their spending on the Sox" are totally wrong unless FSG is debt- or capital-financing the Sox. And they're not -- BECAUSE THE SOX ARE PROFITABLE.

And it's not a case of "FSG takes more profit out of the Sox than they would otherwise because of Liverpool; money that could have been invested in the Sox." The Sox are profitable including their hard capital investments (basically, capital expenditures for them = Fenway and Fort Myers facilities construction/improvement), and they cannot invest a ton more in "soft capital" -- players -- because of the de facto salary cap in MLB.

The Liverpool expenditures are being paid mostly by the obscene amounts of money the big EPL teams get from TV revenue (there's a rights pool that's shared among all teams in the Premiership, and then each team gets paid based on specific games that are televised) and sponsorship revenue. The actual gate is probably the least of their revenue streams (although still quite significant, especially for teams like Man U and Arsenal who have titanic 60k-90k capacity stadia). For a rich team like Liverpool, the owners will be putting in, at most, about $10-30m per year. And that's only if they have to do so to keep the team solvent (insolvent teams can actually be penalized points in the standings -- it's to prevent teams from debt-financing massive expenditures on players in the hopes that they'll recoup the funds via higher placement in the league, which rarely works and usually just drives the team into receivership).

So the FSG/Liverpool talk really grinds my gears, because all the people complaining (Heyman, et al.) make clear is that they blatantly know nothing about business nor about how the EPL finances work.

You're on the mark, LTD.

All of the football (soccer) spending talk is absolute BS being spouted by people who know NOTHING about business. John Henry and FSG do not "spend" on the Red Sox -- THE RED SOX ARE INSANELY PROFITABLE FOR THEM (largely because of the significant fraction of NESN they own). Arguments about "oh, FSG is spending too much on Liverpool which hurts their spending on the Sox" are totally wrong unless FSG is debt- or capital-financing the Sox. And they're not -- BECAUSE THE SOX ARE PROFITABLE.

And it's not a case of "FSG takes more profit out of the Sox than they would otherwise because of Liverpool; money that could have been invested in the Sox." The Sox are profitable including their hard capital investments (basically, capital expenditures for them = Fenway and Fort Myers facilities construction/improvement), and they cannot invest a ton more in "soft capital" -- players -- because of the de facto salary cap in MLB.

The Liverpool expenditures are being paid mostly by the obscene amounts of money the big EPL teams get from TV revenue (there's a rights pool that's shared among all teams in the Premiership, and then each team gets paid based on specific games that are televised) and sponsorship revenue. The actual gate is probably the least of their revenue streams (although still quite significant, especially for teams like Man U and Arsenal who have titanic 60k-90k capacity stadia). For a rich team like Liverpool, the owners will be putting in, at most, about $10-30m per year. And that's only if they have to do so to keep the team solvent (insolvent teams can actually be penalized points in the standings -- it's to prevent teams from debt-financing massive expenditures on players in the hopes that they'll recoup the funds via higher placement in the league, which rarely works and usually just drives the team into receivership).

So the FSG/Liverpool talk really grinds my gears, because all the people complaining (Heyman, et al.)make clear is that they blatantly know nothing about business nor about how the EPL finances work.

I find it difficult to believe that Mike doesn't understand why someone would taunt Giselle like that. Mike, you grew up here! You know what New York fans are like! Normal sports fans are glad their team won. NY sports fans are glad your team lost. This, then, surprises you?

But Pete was pumped! And jacked!

I'll second this. The Curran piece was outstanding. But I think both Bedard and Curran are correct re: Welker -- he should have caught the pass, but he shouldn't have been expected to catch the pass. In other words, it was a very difficult pass to catch, but the kind of pass that a receiver of his caliber should be catching. If that makes sense.

I don't blame Wes at all. I agree with Curran -- the safety was the key play. It changed the tone of the game 150%. If the Pats march down the field on that possession and make it look easy, they put the Giants on their heels and make them get into a playing-from-behind mindset. Instead, the Giants gained confidence and held the ball for almost the entire quarter. Night & day.

John McDaniels wasn't forcing balls to his favorites.