[grump]

I felt fine when I went to bed last night, but this morning I was awakened by a nasty, hangover-style (complete with slight queasiness), dehydration-type headache in my sinuses at (fortunately) exactly the moment I should have heard my alarm but didn't. Feh. And then instead of going to work, I went to the dentist. But at least the needles and the drilling couldn't ruin a day when I already felt good.

I am not afraid of dental work. I think the dental professionals would doubt me if I told them this, because I tense right up when the Novocaine goes in, and I tense up further when the little drill begins, and when they get going with the big drill, I can feel myself trembling. When they step back I have to make a conscious effort to relax one muscle at a time, beginning with the arches of my feet and carrying on all the way up to my shoulders. But this is not fear! It's straightforward loathing, nothing more. They tend to think they're hurting me, because of the way I cringe; but then they can tell they haven't been hurting me, when they stick me with the needle again and it does hurt, a lot, and I actually cry out. There's a world of difference between a patient whose whole body is tense and a patient who is trying reflexively to crawl backward out of the chair and away from you.

(I will say that I like this dentist and his crew very much; I vastly prefer a dentist who is over-concerned about hurting his patients than one who is under-concerned. This guy is businesslike and efficient, but also pays close attention to every flinch, every gasp, every knit of the eyebrows, so if you do feel pain in his chair, you don't feel it for long.)

And now I am at work and the lower left quadrant of my face is numb, which I also don't like. I don't like the rubbery feeling of my skin; I don't know why it should feel different under my fingers when it has no sensation, but it does. That is, if I touch my lower lip with two fingers, one on the right side and one on the left, of course I can feel it on my lip on one side and not the other -- but each finger experiences it differently, and the side I can't feel is not the same as touching someone else's lip, which I also obviously wouldn't be able to feel except with my finger. It's no good. I also don't like the worry that I will bite my tongue. And that, until I resume control of my whole face, I can't drink anything, because I don't have a straw for my water bottle. Dribble dribble.

I've got my upper lip back to about 90%, though, and I got that shot about half an hour before the lower-lip one, so hopefully I'll be back on all cylinders well before lunch time.

the big asterisk

Up-front disclosure: I am intrigued to check out the Mitchell Report. I have entertained the thought of trying to pick the winners, as though the list of 50 or more steroid-using baseball players were an Oscar ballot. (The report comes out the same day as the Golden Globe nominations. Don't tell me that's purely coincidental. ;-) )

But -- forgive me for asking -- why the hell is the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in on this thing? This report was called for by the Commissioner of Baseball, which is exactly right; but I've been baffled for a long time now about why Congress is involved. I know we call it America's Pastime, but really, baseball isn't their business, is it? I mean, the drugs are illegal, which is their business; but nobody is disputing that the drugs are illegal. And if there's funny business going on in baseball, it's the baseball commissioner's office's job to deal with it, right? I really cannot comprehend how it's a federal legislative matter.

Anyone?

everybody's messed up in it, too. ain't nobody clean.

The radio is naming handfuls of names -- Clemens, Bonds, Pettitte, Tejada, Giambi, Giambi, every time. But one of the times, they said Jason Varitek, which, let me tell you, even given that not one single team (even the god-fearing Rockies, evidently) is immune, that is not the Red Sok whose name I would have expected to hear. [eta2: If I'd had to guess -- pick someone off the Red Sox whose name I expected to hear -- I'd have shut my eyes tight and picked Manny Ramírez. Now that the name I do hear is Eric Gagné, I'm not all that surprised.]

[eta: But owing to the number of Jasons per capita in the population from which professional baseball draws (not a lot broadly speaking, but among the white guys, this is the generation for it), and the fact that the reporter tripped over the names "Jason and Jeremy Giambi" a few minutes later, I thought, hang on, this is a PDF-- and I did a ctrl-F search. Found "clemens" (as a test, since I knew it was in there; the searcher is not case-sensitive). Did not find "varitek".

I now fling venom at CBS.]

asterisks for everyone!

The first section of the Mitchell Report is the Summary and Recommendations, and it ends with the following (reproduced without even asking for permission):

While the interest in names is understandable, I hope the media and the public will keep that part of the report in context and will look beyond the individuals to the central conclusions and recommendations of this report. In closing, I want to emphasize them:

1. The use of steroids in Major League Baseball was widespread. The response by baseball was slow to develop and was initially ineffective. For many years, citing concerns for the privacy rights of the players, the Players Association opposed mandatory random drug testing of its members for steroids and other substances. But in 2002, the effort gained momentum after the clubs and the Players Association agreed to and adopted a mandatory random drug testing program. The current program has been effective in that detectable steroid use appears to have declined. However, that does not mean that players have stopped using performance enhancing substances. Many players have shifted to human growth hormone, which is not detectable in any currently available urine test.

2. The minority of players who used such substances were wrong. They violated federal law and baseball policy, and they distorted the fairness of competition by trying to gain an unfair advantage over the majority of players who followed the law and the rules. They -- the players who followed the law and the rules -- are faced with the painful choice of either being placed at a competitive disadvantage or becoming illegal users themselves. No one should have to make that choice.

3. Obviously, the players who illegally used performance enhancing substances are responsible for their actions. But they did not act in a vacuum. Everyone involved in baseball over the past two decades -- Commissioners, club officials, the Players Association, and players -- shares to some extent in the responsibility for the steroids era. There was a collective failure to recognize the problem as it emerged and to deal with it early on. As a result, an environment developed in which illegal use became widespread.

4. Knowledge and understanding of the past are essential if the problem is to be dealt with effectively in the future. But being chained to the past is not helpful. Baseball does not need and cannot afford to engage in a never-ending search for the name of every player who ever used performance enhancing substances. ...

5. But it is now time to look to the future ... .

All of which I mention because I am about to ( summarize the names named. )

( That's everyone up to page 149, which is where The List begins. )