I don't know what is more comical about this New York Times article about some Connecticut teenagers who triggered a town's uproar, complete with angry neighbors, lawyers, police, and even the town's tree warden (whatever the hell that is).
Is it funny that this sort of brouhaha exists in the first place, where kids turned an overgrown abandoned lot into a wiffleball field, and the resulting hullabaloo makes the pages of the nation's pre-eminent newspaper?
Or, is it even more funny that, even if you squint your eyes and try real hard, that this field looks nothing like Fenway Park? I mean, come on now, when you've got this, this, and even this, for pete's sake, you know that Red Sox fans are hardcore and will replicate their historic ballpark to the smallest detail. So why would you think that the NYT's picture at the top of this column was really even a half-decent effort a replicating the park?
And if it was indeed just a weak attempt by some neighborhood kids to replicate Fenway, would the NYT really give a damn and print this story in the first place?
This isn't "a tree-shaded Wiffle ball version of Fenway Park complete with a 12-foot-tall green monster in center field." No, it's a bunch of green wooden boards standing on end, with a center field board that's a little bit taller (note: it isn't even a LEFT field Green Monster, as the tall board is in center), and a couple of flags on top of the tallest board. That's not Fenway. That's a cleared field with some upturned lumber in the back.
I give the kids points for their gardening skills and neighborhood beautifiction efforts, and I'm all for wiffle ball. But a mini-Fenway? That's a stretch. And a NYT-worthy article? Even more so.
photo: Rob Bennett, NYT