Kind of a long story that I might touch on later, but I don’t have my phone, which had the audio of the interview I intended to transcribe today. So in lieu of that, here’s some Twitter Q&A-type stuff. Actually, these ran long so I’m breaking them up into two posts.

One of the inevitable downsides of a sports reporter’s affecting or achieving disinterest in his subject is that readers will perpetually speculate which team he or she favors. I am lucky in that I am able to come right out and tell you I’m a Mets fan so there’s no doubt where my rooting interest lies, and even so I have been accused of being a “fake” Mets fan — though it was never clear if those people meant I was faking my favoring of the Mets or just a fake human, perhaps some sort of bot developed by SNY to forward the company line.
Anyway, I’m reasonably sure that in 90% of cases, the fan guessing at the journalist’s rooting interest is wrong — either it’s simply a matter of confirmation bias on the part of the fan, or the journalist quietly roots for some team the fan hasn’t even considered, or the journalist unknowingly favors the players and teams that make his job easier, or the journalist really doesn’t care. But Stark, here, lends credence to the common Mets-fan theory that he’s a big-time Phillies fan, formed partly because of his past as a Phillies reporter and partly because he dedicates thousands of words to trumpeting the Phillies’ grit and hustle and greatness.
The section about the Mets’ offseason in Stark’s column is so silly it doesn’t even really merit a response. It starts with a joke about how Sandy Alderson probably didn’t know what a Ponzi scheme was before this offseason (with no mention of how he went to Dartmouth then Harvard Law), then goes on to… oh lord, it’s not even worth my frustration. Basically every single thing he writes in the section is wrong or poorly considered.

I was actually thinking about it, so here’s a good excuse. It doesn’t often happen to me — usually I check for my phone, watch and wallet before I leave anywhere. But today I had a small notebook in my coat pocket, and I must have mistaken that for my phone. I had a doctor’s appointment in the morning so I took the train into the office in the middle of the day.
When I finished the Daily News and reached in vain for my phone, my reaction to not finding it wasn’t disappointment or annoyance, but something closer to terror. Then when I realized I was terrified by not having my phone on me, I grew even more terrified because of the implications of that response. What the hell is wrong with me? It was only a little over a year ago that I got a smartphone, and now I’m so dependent on the thing that I completely panic when I don’t have access to it.
I mean, granted in this particular situation I had work I wanted to be doing that required the phone, plus it was technically in the middle of my work day and I work on the Internet, so I have a couple of excuses. But still. Kinda got me thinking of the Matrix, and wondering if the first people that plugged into those pod things did so on a voluntary basis.
I am generally of the mind that the technology that enriches our lives makes us smarter, and I have no doubt that the awesome breadth of information now almost perpetually available at my fingertips has better prepared me to succeed on Jeopardy. But I do wonder sometimes if the constant distraction affects the depth of my thoughts, and if I wouldn’t be better off putting the damn thing on the shelf for a few days every so often to better convene with whatever the hell is out there that’s not on Twitter.