And so it begins…


Last night the two baseball teams I follow the closest, my beloved Minnesota Twins and the Boston Red Sox, with whom I am increasingly less and less enamored of, took the field for the opening game of the Mayor’s Cup, the annual Twins-Red Sox spring training title. NESN aired the game last night, so I was able to watch the Twins win 5-2.
But man, the rotating announcers NESN had last night in Jerry Remy’s absence did not want to talk about the game at hand unless the Red Sox were at bat. I was being a passive fan, simultaneously solving some crosswords and generally surfing the internet while the game was going on. I figured if someone got a big hit or scored, they’d announce it and I’d look up from whatever I was engrossed at the moment. But somehow, not enough fuss was made in the bottom of the 2nd because suddenly I looked up and the Twins were ahead 3-0. And the announcers were talking about Pedro Martinez. What?!
I know it’s spring training and it doesn’t “count” and that this was a broadcast for Red Sox fans, but come on. The Twins scored three runs and the announcers were instead talking about a guy who hasn’t played for the Sox in nearly five years. It’s that kind of arrogance and narcissism throughout “Red Sox Nation” that makes them the second most hated team in baseball (behind the Yankees, of course).


2 responses

  1. with whom I am increasingly less and less enamored of
    This is the most grammatically acrobatic phrase I have ever seen in my entire life. It resists criticism.

  2. As the father of the author, I feel somewhat obligated to defend the writing found within this entry.
    First, I would like to take exception with Wally’s comment in general. He makes the audacious claim “It resists criticism.” I think not. I believe Wally meant to say, “it invites criticism”. To critique the critic, I believe he simply is unable untangle the grammatically acrobatic. I, of course, refuse to.
    Were I to criticize, I might mention that the phrase in question suggests a certain intellectual elitism. That is, the author clearly understands that plebeian use of the dangling participle is to be avoided. Unfortunately, her refound Bostonian accent, replete with the inherent classism, forces her to speak as if she were a Red Sox Nationite. (Here in flyover land, we are quite familiar with the type, being in close proximity of Green Bay Packer fans, commonly referenced as “Cheeseheads”.)
    In short, as a Red Sox Nationite, she loses the ability to remember her thought through the entirety of her sentence. That is, “I am not going to have a dangler so I will begin the phrase with ‘with whom’.
    However, as first stated, as her father this is something I wouldn’t point to.