I've never before made an effort to explain the thought process behind one of my books, because it's actually surprisingly hard to put into words. You spend a ton of time researching, writing, editing, and often the thought process just sort of becomes the day-to-day work. But, hell, I'll try …

What I wanted to do with "Boys Will Be Boys" is explore a team that was equal parts likeable and detestable, and do so in a way that wouldn't have readers walking away with a 100-percent one-sided opinion. For example, toward the end of working on my Barry Bonds biography, "Love Me, Hate Me," I was pretty certain those who took the time to read the book (thanks, by the way) would have little good to say about the man. That wasn't my desire—I desperately wanted to find a positive side to Bonds. But, well, I also want to cure chronic nasal drip and learn to like the taste of Old Milwaukee.

Unlike Bonds, the Cowboys present multiple sides. Take Michael Irvin, for example. The guy was one of the worst role models a person could imagine—cheated on his wife constantly; did tons of drugs; employed questionable sportsmanship. But, at the same time, he'd literally take a bullet for a teammate. Irvin worked his butt off, showed up early, played hard 100 percent of the time, gave loads of time and money to charity. So is he a good guy or a bad guy? Hmm …

I also didn't want this to be strictly a detailing of a team's bad behavior. I'm becoming increasingly aware that authors can be typecast in ways similar to actors and singers, and with a history that included the 1999 John Rocker profile for Sports Illustrated, as well as two books about controversial subjects (the '86 Mets and Bonds), I desperately want to avoid that (My next book: Knitting & You: Good Times). Hence, to me this book is about these amazing teams even more than it's about the drugs and women. It's about the development of Aikman; the explosiveness of Emmitt Smith; the practice habits of Michael Irvin. It's about the drastically different styles of two coaches, Jimmy Johnson and Barry Switzer, who both won Super Bowls. First and foremost, I wanted it to be a football book.

That said, the Cowboys of the '90s are the Cowboys of the '90s, and they're significantly more than a mere football team. That whole time period was just, for lack of a better word, dizzying. The Cowboys owned Dallas, as well as the NFL. They were the high-flying stars of the sporting world in the last pre-internet, pre-reality TV era, when fans actually read newspapers and watched entire games (without checking their e-mails) to learn the results. I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to say here, except that the Cowboys enjoyed a certain intimacy with their fans. They were live and in-person—right there for the taking.

I tried my best to capture this. Hopefully, the book speaks for itself …

It's official (if not especially exciting) ...

I'm back in the blogging game. I've left the myspace womb to go solo. New blog address:

http://jeffpearlman.com/?page_id=7

Please (pretty please) ask any nice, sympathetic sports fan friends/crazy friends/any friends to check it out. To be honest, I'm trying to get the site to move up the google rankings (when one googles my name) and the only way it seems to work is with repeated hits, etc.

Anyhow, sorry to be a pain. Much thanks.

Jeff

So for my seven loyal readers out there, i'm sorta putting an end to my myspace blog. reasons:

a. myspace is really starting to annoy me.
b. see a.
c. i've started my own site, jeffpearlman.com, for book stuff and blogging. will start blogging very soon. but site also has lots of info on the books, writing etc.

i'll still check here—but not that often.

word, and thanks for reading.

jeff

ps: and facebook is so much better than myspace.

My brother and I were not especially close as boys. He was two years older, and we were drastically different in all ways. But now, as we get older, I think we're becoming a wee-bit closer. At least I hope so.

Anyhow, I'm asking you (yes, you) a favor. My brother has started a blog, and it's funny. He gets no hits, however ... no comments. So I wanted to ask that you (yes, you) at least drop by and take a gander. It'll make him feel good—and he deserves good feelings.

Here's the link:

http://entnation.com/index.php?option=com_mamblog&Itemid=37&task=show&action=user&id=306

Thank you. It's genuinely appreciated.

Am sitting in my in-laws' house in Palm Beach Gardens, Fl. Supposed to be working, but this video stole my attention. Cracks me up every single time ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLFrzkTHP18

Cowboys book is coming out in about 2 1/2 months. Almost all done. Get one more read-through, just to double check. Also got a bill today for $1,700 for pictures. A sucky part of being an author (not named John Feinstein): You've gotta buy the photos to place inside your book ... and they ain't cheap.

Am also sort of finishing up jeffpearlman.com, which I'll use to promote the book. Not sure what, exactly, I'm gonna put on there and how, exactly, to use a site to promote book sales. Any ideas/thoughts always appreciated ...

So it's been a while, but today I'll post my new Top 10 list—The TOP 10 PEOPLE MOST LIKELY TO BE VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES. Spliy by party ...

DEMOCRAT:
1. Jim Webb, Virginia—Tough-talking, somewhat conservative veteran from an important up-for-grabs state. Has been pimpin' hard for Obama, which doesn't hurt.
2. Hillary Clinton, New York—Hard to see, but not as hard as it once was. She might have enough power in the party to make this happen; she'd help raise even more dough, she's tough as steel and Obama must be worried about the female vote.
3. Bill Richardson, New Mexico—I sure as hell hope not, but the guy is from a relatively important state, he helps with the Hispanic vote and he went out on a ledge for Obama very early on, damning himself to an eternity of Clinton hatred.
4. Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania governor—A Hillary supporter, but one from a vital state who seems open to this idea. Smart, relatively well known, etc ...
5. Chuck Hagel, Nevada—A Republican, which will either be a huge boost or a huge gaffe. Obama heads into this fight as the frontrunner, so this might be too big of a risk to take. But then again ...

REPUBLICAN:
1. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana—Only 37-years old (in six days), Jindal is an arch conservative ... but a youthful one. Also happens to be the son of Indian immigrants, which can make the Republicans seem downright open-minded. Yet there's risk: The Repubs will do their all to make people think Obama is a Muslim. This strategy isn't nearly as impactful when your veep is named Piyush "Bobby" Jindal.
2. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Texas—Conservative Texas senator's biggest drawback is age: She's 64, and looks about as old as McCain. That's not a blueprint to beat Obama, age 46. That said, if Obama picks a man, this might be McCain's best bet to pick up millions of women pissed off over Hillary's demise.
3. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts—The worst presidential candidate in history, but a true arch-conservative who might help McCain make peace with his party's base. With Romney, McCain can talk moderate from one side of his mouth, but point to Romney and say, "Traditional values ... traditional values."
4. Mike Huckabee, Arkansas—Sort of like Romney, but 8,000-times more likeable. A bit risky, because he's from a state they're already likely to win, and he's only a blah speaker.
5. Condoleezza Rice, Alabama—Unlikely, but intriguing. Plus: Smart, woman, minority, experience. Negatives: If you're running away from Bush, this ain't the way to do so.

I grew up in a town where my best friend, an African-American kid, had two crosses burned in his front yard; where the n-word was used with ghastly casualness and most would never, ever, allow their preciious white children to date someone of a different race. When I was in seventh grade my history teacher gave us a lecture on how "blacks can't ski—they just can't." (nearly everyone laughed—including the teacher).

So it is with genuine joy that I watched last night as Barack Obama was nominated to run for the presidency. It is a moment I never believed I would see in this lifetime.

To me, the upcoming election is—in many ways—a no-brainer. I respect McCain; certainly admire him. But facts are facts, and he is a strongly conservative, pro-war, pro-Scalia Supreme Court Republican who has sided with Bush far too often these last 7 1/2 years. I certainly don't consider him the Evil (capitalized intentionally) that GWB has been, but he brings nothing new/unique to the table. His time was eight years ago, and it has passed.

I acknowledge that Obama has less experience than your average presidential nominee. But I'm willing to take the risk here. When I watch him speak, I see a man of conviction and character. I see someone who doesn't blatantly pander—a genuinely different sort of candidate.

The below passge was posted on andrewsullivan.com today. To me, it speaks volumes ...

My grandfather, 86 years old and a veteran of WWII, just gave me a call. He was calling all of his grandchildren to let them know what an important night this was in the history of our country.
Grandpa drove a truck for over 50 years, and he told the story of how he drove with a team of drivers, 2 white (including him), and 4 black. When they stopped at the truck stops, the black drivers had to use seperate restrooms and showers, and had to eat in a small room in the back of the kitchen. Grandpa and his co-driver would eat in the back with the rest of the team, and while they didn't speak of it at the time, they knew it was wrong yet felt powerless to change it, and believed that it would never change.
Tonight, he told me, we have come full-circle. Many people, especially the younger generation who supported Obama, will never fully realize the historical import of what happened tonight. But he wanted his grandchildren to know this story that he had never told us, and it was the second time in my 33 years that I have heard my grandpa cry.

Am sitting in the neightborhood Cosi, doing some work. Thought hit me: Everyone gossips. Gossip, gossip, gossip, gossip. Right now, odds are someone's talking shit about you. About me. People live for this shit—gossip, gossip, gossip. Just sat next to a college girl who gossiped to her friend about having sex on a beach in Africa. These others are gossiping about work. Abound husbands.

We all love gossiping, but we never think people are gossiping about us. Bad news—they are.

"I won't vote for Obama. You go on the Internet and see him associated with that church, with the Koran. He won't wear a flag pin. … After 9/11, there is absolutely no way I'd support someone who is associated with the Koran. I won't support terrorism," - Clinton supporter Cheryl Chamberlain in South Dakota.

The following article sums it up. When it came/comes to the rights of women, the Republicans balk. When it came/comes to the rights of blacks, the Republicans balk. They are as unprogressive as a political party can possibly be, and it makes me sick.

Now here we are in 2008, the environment a HUGE issue that will friggin' damn my children and their children ... and they do nothing. Why save the planet when it could increase gas prices? Why be progressive?

To hell with 'em ...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate on Monday voted to debate a Democratic-backed bill to dramatically cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.


A bill to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere is nearing debate in the Senate.

But Republicans say they will later block the bill's passage because they are concerned it would increase energy costs and damage the U.S. economy, according to lawmakers and aides from both parties.

The White House opposes the bill, which is designed to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by 2 percent a year starting in 2012 until emissions are reduced by 66 percent in 2050.

Speaking at a White House event Monday, President Bush warned the additional costs associated with bill, which he estimated at $6 trillion, would be too much of a burden on the American economy.

"There is a much better way to address the environment than imposing these costs on job creators," Bush said. "We'll work with the Congress, but the idea of a huge spending bill fueled by tax increases isn't the right way to proceed."

The bill uses a "cap-and-trade" system wherein the government would cap the amount of pollution a company is allowed to emit -- which would be lowered each year -- but would also give companies some flexibility by allowing them to buy pollution credits from companies whose emissions fall below their caps.

Under the bill, the government would auction off the credits and use some of the proceeds to help consumers who are expected get hit by higher energy costs.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, who heads the environment committee, said the changes are needed to combat the "ravages of global warming." Watch why Boxer is pushing the bill now »


"These higher temperatures are going to cause terrible problems all over the world -- more extreme weather events, vectors that we haven't seen before. The military people say that it's going to be a cause of wars in the future. So we must act," she said in an interview with CNN.

But many Republicans say the bill's costs are too high.

"The impact of this climate tax is too great to bear for Kentuckians and for the rest of the country," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, said Monday as the debate began.

"At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills and when the price of gas seems to be rising higher and higher every day, [the Democratic] majority is showing itself to be laughably out of touch by moving to a bill that would raise the price of gas even higher."

But the top Democrat in the Senate said the United States "is obligated to lead, not to follow, on this most important issue of our time and perhaps of all time" and that doing nothing would be even more costly.

"President Bush says 'let's bide our time until 2025,' " Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday. "Is it really cheaper to do nothing? Of course not. It's just the opposite. The longer we wait, the more it will cost to solve this very difficult problem."

Regardless of their opposition, GOP senators will vote to begin the debate because "Republicans need to explain the problems with this bill," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader. But Republicans will ultimately block the bill before it faces a final vote, he said.

The bill was authored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and Sen. John Warner, a Republican from Virginia.

Interest groups such as the Club for Growth, which opposes the bill, and the Environmental Defense Fund, which supports it, have lobbied furiously on the issue. Both are running TV ads in multiple states targeting senators up for re-election as well as those in states with industries that could be affected by the bill.

Both Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, support the measure.

But Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who many thought would vote for it because he has supported the idea of "cap and trade," appeared poised to vote against the measure because, he says, it doesn't do enough to boost the use of nuclear power.