Saturday, July 05, 2008

Recycled Crap

The Globe's technical staff must have been enjoying an extended 4th of July holiday today. Here is the secret - Shaughnessy is a figment of our imagination; he doesn't really exist. As we touched on last year, the Globe has a machine they use to churn out columns with the Shaughnessy by-line. They call it the "Crank a Shank" - it cranks out column after column replete with 1980s references; corny musical references; and bitter diatribes against certain people. About once a month, the "Crank a Shank" hiccups and if it is not re-booted properly, it kicks out the same garbage two days in a row.

Today was one of those yesterday and today's both, Shaughnessy tells about Steinbrenner's birthday; overreacts to a Yankees loss; discusses the Yankees team meeting; makes light of ARod's marital problems; tells us that Yankee Stadium is on 161st street; and calls Darryl Rasner "immortal" (what the hell is up with that anyway--this is a favorite Shankism - call some no-name "immortal"--it's not funny, particularly two days in a row). Yes, the old "Crank a Shank" is a little buggy.

So the Yankees lose two games in a row and Shaughnessy says "The situation in New York is bad." Typical Shaughnessy hyperbole. (How much will his tone change now that the Yankees beat the Red Sox today?)

I also dont particularly care for Shaughnessy's double standard. He rails against Manny and the Red and says the Red Sox are enabler of Ramirez' bad behavior. And yet, ARod's alleged extramarital affair is nothing but a silly throw-away punch line. Adultery and assault are two different crimes but why does Shaughnessy assume a self-righteous attitude on one and a casual dismissive attitude about the other? I for one, am much concerned about infidelity and broken homes and their impact on today's society and a star like Arod cheating on his wife doesn't set a very good example, does it? You can argue that it is a personal matter and perhaps it is - but Shaughnessy should then simply not discuss it. Given that he can't let it go, he is guilty of a serious double standard by making it a joke.

I hope the Globe editors enjoyed their extra long week. With any luck, someone will re-boot the "Crank a Shank" machine today so we can get something fresh Sunday AM.


Dave M said...

Immortal - a Shank favorite
7/5/08 "He'd have noticed he had the immortal Darrell Rasner on tap to start while the Red Sox..."

7/4/08 "This afternoon while Josh Beckett and the immortal Darrell Rasner prepare to work on the mound at 161st Street..."

4/9/08 "a conga line of hardware-toting Hub superstars including Bill Russell, Bobby Orr, Tedy Bruschi, and the immortal Curtis Leskanic."

10/24/07 "You get bonus points if you can name tomorrow's starter (it's the immortal Ubaldo Jimenez)."

10/10/07 "when Boston manager Joe McCarthy selected the immortal Denny Galehouse to pitch the most important game of the season"

10/02/07 "The Raiders, by the way, are still waiting for the immortal John Bowie (acquired with the draft pick the Patriots swapped for Moss)"

8/7/2007 "He was pulled from the game with no outs in the top of the seventh after surrendering a solo homer to the immortal Maicer Izturis and a double to Jeff (0 for 18) Mathis."

8/4/07 ...teammates staked him to a 3-0 lead, but he coughed up a run in the third, then yielded a three-run shot to the immortal Yuniesky Betancourt in the fourth

5/22/07: Sunday night's 6-2 victory over the Mets -- the one in which the immortal Tyler Clippard made his major league debut

4/11/07: "The no-hitter suspense was erased in the third when Kenji Johjima led off with a single to left and the immortal Yuniesky Betancourt followed with a double to right"

7/15/06 The immortal Mark Ellis took Beckett over the Green Monster in the fourth inning of last night's 15-3 dismantling by the Oakland A.

2/21/06: "he was coughing up a 4-0 lead against the White Sox, surrendering a three-run homer to the immortal Tadahito Iguchi"

8/16/03 "The immortal Willie Bloomquist was next and he hit a rocket toward short, which exploded in the dirt and blasted off Garciaparra's right."

4/7/03: Bobby Doerr, Carl Yastrzemski, and Ted Williams, plus a raft of riffraff including Scott Cooper, Roy Carlyle, and the immortal Lu Clinton.

3/31/03: That'll change late this afternoon when Johnny Damon steps to the plate to face the immortal Joe Kennedy in this ugly cement cylinder they call the Tropicana dome.

10/12/02: The immortal Chone Figgins ran for Molina and Benji Gil sacrificed him to second. Behind in the count, 0 and 2, David Eckstein lined..

I could go on and on for pages--I kid you not. Hey immortal OB, can you tell us why the immortal Shaughnessy is so enamored with this word. Is it his signature slight? Just curious

dbvader said...

If the Shank hasn't heard of him, that makes him "immortal."

It is a sign of Shank's ignorance.

dbvader said...


"("now youse can't leave," in the immortal words of Chazz Palminteri in "A Bronx Tale")."


"The monstrous clout drew the approval of Chazz Palminteri (genius of "A Bronx Tale," one of the top 10 movies of all time) sitting in the second row behind home plate. Chazz turned to the guy sitting to his right and whispered something like "Now, yous can't leave."


"the door, and announces, "Now you can't leave." A bloodbath ensues.

Dan recycling.

The movie is good, but it is 15 years old. Get another reference.

roger bournival said...

BONUS - two lame song references:

"just another brick in the wall" (I'd consider this non-lame if this song wasn't beaten to near-death by radio overplay), and

"It's part of the deal if you're going to run with Lady Madonna."

Does anyone else see Dan chuckling to himself when he writes that part of the column?

OB (from the last thread) - you:

Criminal acts are not subject to the mythical free market. The criminal justice system does not defer to "market forces."

...then me:

Nice strawman argument there! Who, exactly, explicitly compared criminal acts to the mythical 'free market'/ 'market forces'? It's not there.

Who made that argument in the previous thread? Dave M? DB Vader? DB Cooper? Who was it? Is this 'coherent' enough for you?

objectivebruce said...

Immortal is a modifier he is fond of using. So what?

But dbvader doesn't get it as the list of immortals dug up for some purpose or another does not exactly include household names; it is largely a collection of has-beens and never-weres. Which is precisely the point.

And Roger, if you're going to engage in self-congratulation, find something worthy of congratulating yourself about. An utterance that wasn't worthy of a response ain't it

roger bournival said...

Your refusal to answer or address a straightforward question correctly proves my point - that you brought up a strawman argument, and you got called on it.

Better luck next time...

Dave M said...


The point is that "immortal" is used to the point of absolute absurdity. He is obviously attempting to use it in an ironic way....but when he throws it out as often he does, it loses its sense of irony. You know it may make sense to use it for a Denny Galehouse or Bucky Dent or some other lesser name that has achieved a small moment of notoriety in a very significant situation....but to throw it out there like he does demonstrates his laziness and overwrought cleverness.

Dirty Water said...

With all due respect for this blog's role in beinging attention to the most pathetic writer in Boston sports, either Shank penned 'The House That Melky Cabrera Tore Down' or he stole it from someone. If the latter, I would not be shocked. If the former, though, he deserves credit for its perfectity.

Chris said...

I laugh at the utter stupidity of a writer (an 'above-the-fold' one at that) who pronounces the Yankees 'dead' just before the 'dead' team comes back to win two against the Sox. Shank is full of pronouncements and proclamations that simply fall with a THUD as soon as he makes them. He is a rather comical, acerbic fellow who rightly deserves the arrows and bullets sent his way.

Anonymous said...

"Adultery and assault are two different crime" - As far as I know, Adultery is not a crime ... unless it is one of those obscure still on the books and never enforced laws.

mike_b1 said...

objectivebruce is an immortal DSW reader.

Anonymous said...


Back to criminal acts by employees. You suppose, if I were a Globe mailroom guy, I could haul off and smack ol' Marty Baron right in the nutbag and get away with it?

Jus' wondering.

Your pal,


Dave M said...

anon 9:26: You are probably right about the criminal aspects (or lack thereof) of adultery. I am colored by my military experience in which adultery is a punishable offense. And I would not be surprised if adultery was, as you mention, criminal in some states but I dont know for sure

I would say the spirit of my original remark stays though. I think adultery and divorce have wreaked havoc on our society and Shank is guilty of a double standard for making a big deal of one and a joke of the other

Anonymous said...

Even in the military adultery, while against UCMJ, is rarely prosecuted unless it involves a spouse of another soldier or an affair witin the ranks.

Dave M said...

Anon 1011

Yes this is quite true - adultery by itself is rarely if ever pursed as a charge against a military member; it is usually coupled with charges for other offenses. Still, definitely something the military member would pay a higher price for

Objectivebruce said...

Roger, go back and read what I said. It was suggested that the club owes no explanation because the free market means someone who wants one can just go to the movies. I suggest that an explanation is needed because we're talking about breaking the law.

I realize I am dealing with limited reading comprehension skills, but kindly make an effort before attempting to debate by using the old radio talk show host gimmick of getting worked up over petty nonsense so that the true issue can be safely ignored.

objectivebruce said...

Timmy, you probably would be charged if you punched the editor of the Globe. Maybe you wouldn't. Why don't you try it and get back to us, if it's that important to you.

Objectivebruce said...

And yet again, we are called upon to educate the ignorant,

Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272, Section 14:

A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for educating the ignorant OB.

So why is Shaughnessy flippant about alleged adultery and flipping out over Ramirez alleged assault?

Anonymous said...

OB is actually right. Adultery is still on the books here in Mass. and was even found to be constitutional as recently as 1983 by the SJC. There is, however, a recently proposed legislation to repeal the statute, which I hope passes.

dbvader said...

It is clear to anybody that follows these issues that the Mass. law (or any state law) against adultery would not be constitutional. Forty years of federal case law make it pretty easy to realize.

There are different issues regarding the UCMJ that prevent any comparison to federal law.

roger bournival said...

Roger, go back and read what I said. It was suggested that the club owes no explanation because the free market means someone who wants one can just go to the movies. I suggest that an explanation is needed because we're talking about breaking the law.

It took you two days to come up with that? What did you actually say about it?

Criminal acts are not subject to the mythical free market. The criminal justice system does not defer to "market forces."

It is you who are suggesting someone made that connection. Dave M 'suggested' that the Red Sox market share would decline if not handled in an appropriate PR manner. He said nothing about the criminal act itself, which is handled by a guy called the district attorney and has nothing to do with the Red Sox market share.

These are two entirely different matters, aren't they?

You decided to conveniently blend the two matters together, a tenuous relation at best. This is why such arguments are called strawmen arguments, because they're so easy to beat down.

Is this what passes for 'educating the ignorant'?