Famed backboard-breaking dunker of the 1990s / WED 8-9-23 / Rule that forbids singings hymns to the devil / NBA forward Porter Jr. / Woodworker's file / Pizzeria offerings served with marinara for dipping / Classic show tune with the lyric When you know the notes to sing, you can sing most anything

Outlander is a historical drama television series based on the Outlander novel series by Diana Gabaldon. Developed by Ronald D. Moore, the show premiered on August 9, 2014, on Starz. It stars Caitríona Balfeas Claire Randall, a former Second World War military nurse in Scotland who, in 1945, finds herself transported back in time to 1743. There she encounters, falls in love with and marries a dashing Highlandwarrior named Jamie Fraser (Sam Heughan), a tacksman of Gabaldon's fictionalized version of Clan Fraser of Lovat. Here, Claire becomes embroiled in the Jacobite rising. (wikipedia)

Pretty dull wackiness today.You've got one real winner (NO CHANTS IN HELL), and then a bunch of seat-fillers ranging in quality from OK (GHOSTLY PRESENTS) to completely forgettable (LOSING PATIENTS). That "patience" / "patients" similarity is old hat and was the pun I was able to get to the quickest. GHOSTLY PRESENTS benefitted from being first, so it had the capacity to (like a good ghost) surprise! And then NO CHANTS IN HELL had me thinking the wackiness might actually achieve acceptable or even enjoyable levels today. But then the bottom half of the grid happened, and the concept just ran out of steam. The cluing didn't help. I don't know that PRINTS OF THIEVES is a bad pun, as far as this exact -CE-to-TS spelling pun goes, but the clue is so dull. Yes, thieves leave fingerprints. They do that. IRL. So ... how is this funny. At least the other clues really leaned into wackiness (with the best of them leaning in hard, which is a big reason why it's the best of them). But the PRINTS OF THIEVES clue is anti-wacky. Joy-draining. Nothing about thieves who steal art? Or who are actual *cat* burglars (you know, who might leave paw "prints")? Like ... get wacky with it or go home. As for the rest of the grid, it's chock full o' short stuff and doesn't have much to recommend it. The longer Downs are fine, and CALZONES are tasty, but it's mostly a shrug—a grid you dutifully fill in, but one that never gives you much to be excited about, or even amused by.

It is an incredible accomplishment to make it as a pro athlete in any sport, so on that level I have respect for OTTO Porter, Jr., but as a crossword answer? He was on a team that won a championship recently, it's true, but so were other guys you couldn't name, and beyond that championship, there's no real distinguishing accomplishment of the type that might make you think, "hey, this guy should really be in a crossword." No All-Star appearances, no scoring or rebounding titles ... I dunno, he's just good at basketball in a kind of ordinary way, which is itself extraordinary—again, just *being* a pro is amazing. But usually to be a crossword answer, you'd expect some there to be *some* reason that the gen pop (i.e. non-basketball fan) might know him, and I can't see what that is. In his defense, wikipedia does say that his play in the 2022 Finals was a significant part of Golden State's winning that championship: "He would play a sizable role in the finals, starting in Game Six, and helping them take home the title." Credit where credit is due. It's just bizarre to have an exceedingly easy puzzle where the one idea they have for "increasing difficulty" is "let's throw in a random basketball player. Just so we can have a different OTTO." I guess I should be grateful that it's not just the "Simpsons" bus driver again. but this one seemed pretty obscure (for non-fans). LOL I just looked up [men named Otto] and of course got this:

Even though EGRETS are about the crosswordesiest birds there are, I enjoyed seeing them today because they reminded me of my new favorite podcast, "Field Trip," which is about the National Parks (I'm halfway through the Everglades episode). Rather than just provide a kind of straightforward description or history of the parks, the show looks at the park from a ground-level view, often through the eyes of someone who works or lives near the park, and often that person is a member of a Native American tribe, so you are constantly having to think about the majesty of the parks alongside the realities of land appropriation and mismanagement, the ravages of capitalism and commerce. And yet despite dealing with some unpleasant realities it still manages to convey the breathtaking quality of these unique and awe-inspiring environments, and celebrates attempts both inside and outside the Park’s’ official infrastructure to keep the parks wild, magnificent, and thriving. The field recordings are beautiful and the conversations between the host (Washington Post's Lillian Cunningham) and her guides and other interview subjects are candid, frank, and frequently surprising (and even funny). Her Everglades recordings and interviews are repeatedly punctuated by animals just ... showing up. Alligators in their path, ospreys dive-bombing for a meal just off to the side of their boat. It's immersive and wonderful and I'm getting paid nothing to tell you this, OK bye!