My commute to work takes about 15 minutes. During that period of time, I got to hear the following shining examples of Socratic reasoning:
1. On 680, Perry Laurentino is launching into a tirade about African-Americans supporting Barry Bonds and Michael Vick. When Laurentino attacks African-Americans for supposedly defending dog-fighting, Christopher Rude makes the obvious point that while dog-fighting is a bad thing, the question is whether there is a link between Vick and dog-fighting. Laurentino responds that it is "legalistic" to demand such a link. Sure.
This comes on the heels of Laurentino dismissing soccer as a "Communist" sport earlier in the morning. Let's see. The NFL has complete revenue sharing, a hard salary cap, and it derives a significant portion of its profits from state subsidies in the form of publicly-funded stadia. European football leagues have minimal revenue sharing so the best-run and/or most popular clubs can retain the money that they generate, relegation that punishes ineptly run clubs (you think that Bill Bidwell would continue to rake in profits in the Bundesliga? His team would be in a regional league right now, battling Kickers Offenbach or KFC Uerdingen 05, which is what is supposed to happen in a meriocracy.), and no salary caps so the best players can get their true market value. Which sport is "Communist" again?
2. I switch over to 790, where they are discussing Alex Rodriguez. After Chris Dimino volunteers a very interesting stat that A-Rod is hitting .520-something in the 9th inning this year and has seven game-winning hits, Mike Bell (admittedly after putting on the self-parody "Sparky the Sportscaster" moniker) attempts to argue that A-Rod winning games for the Yankees in a year in which they aren't playing well is meaningless. That makes perfect sense. The Yankees are threatened by not making the post-season for the first time in over a decade. A-Rod is the one guy keeping the team afloat and in striking distance of a playoff berth. So naturally, that means that A-Rod can't come through when the chips are down. The argument might be the Platonic ideal of the fallacy of "clutch hitting." Any game that A-Rod wins is by definition not a big game, so the sample size keeps changing and shrinking to fit the hypothesis that he's a choker. Cue Bobby Bowden's observation that "the big one" is always the one that you don't win.