Remember When Gregg Easterbrook Got Fired From ESPN For Anti-Semitism?

Yeah, me too. But now he's back, bay-bee! And, he's apparently upset about how the whole NFL Draft thing played out last weekend. I think. The thing is, I'm really not sure what the point of his article is.

Will the mock draft now disappear from history?

Oh boy.

So far as I can determine, not one single mock draft in the entire local space-time continuum had Williams first. (Actually, mine did, but I didn't finish my board until late Friday night.)

Had to throw in the fact that your mock draft was right, didn't you? Oh, and what the hell is a mock draft hatin' fella like yourself doing making a mock draft in the first place? We don't take kindly to people who don't take kindly 'round here, Gregg.

Obviously people do mock drafts as a diversion from the fact they are desperate for football but there isn't any this time of year.

Man, I know what you mean. I hate it when I'm walking back to my house late at night and all these people come up to me, you know, looking for a fix, pleading with me in their tattered clothes for some money so they can go subscribe to ESPN Insider and read Mel Kiper Jr.'s latest mock draft. "Come on, man, just one more analysis of a D-IAA defensive lineman! I'm beggin' you, man."

Still, it set some kind of record for futility that with all the energy put into mock drafts by millions of sportswriters, bloggers and fantasy leaguers, everyone was completely wrong about everything.

Except you, Gregg Easterbrook. Your mock draft was right, remember? You just told me that in the last paragraph.

You know who else I bet was surprised that Houston took Mario Williams with the first pick instead of Reggie Bush? Every NFL General Manager except Charlie Casserly. Probably the most surprised were the front office people at the New Orleans Saints. I really hate this part of his article, because now he starts trying to make people feel guilty for following the draft and being wrong about something about which all they can do as outsiders is speculate.

Then, later on, it gets really bad:

Last week General Electric, which had $148 billion in 2005 revenue and whose status is essential to the future of the American economy, held its annual meeting. A thousand media people did not attend.

Ugh. I hate when sportswriters try and play the "I'm going to guilt trip people into keeping sports in perspective" card. It's hacky and it always comes off as condescending and prick-ish. People are reading your article to hear your thoughts on sports, so talk about sports. Don't give me a lecture on the role of General Electric in the American economy.

True scoops -- such as the New York Times reporting the Bush administration's unauthorized electronic surveillance, something no other news organization knew -- are significant. First-to-the-microphone scoops, where one reporter beats others by minutes, seem evanescent.

That's right, Gregg Easterbrook. First-to-the-microphone scoops are likely to vanish like vapor. You know what else makes you sound like a prick? Using unnecessarily obscure words like 'evanescent' as you shame readers into not caring about the news. Finally, what really gets my gumption up is the fact that the whole point of the last two paragraphs assumes that people who follow the NFL and the Draft only follow the NFL and the Draft, and are disinterested in every other facet of what's going on in the country right now. It's true to a point, I'm sure, but it's an unfair and sweeping generalization. Also, the media people who are concerned with these vaporous, evanescent 'scoops' are just doing their job, Gregg. It's their job to cover sports with the zeal that the people at the New York Times cover the Bush administration, and it's your job to talk about sports. So please, Greg, do that, and stop lecturing me in a fucking Page 2 article on ESPN.com.

ESPN.com: The worldwide leader in sports (but you should be focusing on current affairs, you slob).