That's the thing about the Devil - he always has an advocate

Occasionally I will lash out at someone with very, very little provocation. I almost never know anything about that person, what he's about, what are his hopes and dreams, what the people who love him think. I post with my id, without regard for the consequences.

And sometimes, when that happens, I find out more about that person subsequently. I have the chance to really see what that person is about. And I learn something.

In this case, I learned I was right all along. Will you get a load of this load.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that someone might defend David Beckham for a number of reasons. I can think of a few:

(1) He or she genuinely believes Beckham to suffer a greater degree of uncalled-for criticism than the average person.

(2) He or she genuinely believes that this criticism must be answered, as it constitues a genuine injustice.

(3) He or she genuinely believes that Beckham's enormous publicity and marketing apparatus is incapable of answering such criticism.

(4) He or she knows better than fans of the club for which Beckham plays how well or poorly Beckham is actually performing.

(5) He or she is an empty-headed ninny who has bought in to the idea that Beckham represents England, or football, or anything at all besides Beckham himself.

(6) He or she is an employee of 19 Entertainment, and believes, or is paid to believe, that Beckham's interests are served by aping the idioicies the man himself chooses to spout.

So what happens when someone like this is confronted with an article about highly intelligent, articulate, handsome Galaxy fans and their reasonable opinions about David Beckham?

It's not pretty. The careful observer will have noted the amount of time Evans spends on a game from 2009. Beckham has played well in games before and since, but you would have had to actually watch him play to know that. This is the main problem with Evans' critique of the critiquers - he relies on secondhand knowledge spoon-fed to him from the Beckham camp, or their tabloid muezzins.

Well...no, the main problem is endemic among the Beckham amen choir - a short term memory that would shame a mayfly. To Evans, "The Beckham Experiment" was about not buying dinner...not forcing a lousy coach onto his team, then dogging it when that coach quit. To Evans, Galaxy fans were unhappy that Beckham would have the temerity to play for AC Milan...not that Beckham wanted to force a permanent transfer to the club's disadvantage.

And to Evans, Beckham went to Tottenham to merely keep fit. To quote the Shakespeare tragedy "Convoy," that's a big negatory, good buddy.

As far as the transparently obvious pseudonym quoted at the bottom of the New York Times article, well, the opposite of modesty the opposite of forbids. Unfortunately for my vanity towards my quips, the funniest quote in the article came from Beckham himself:

He said this on Friday, mere days after a performance in the Seattle rain worthy of the Wicked Witch of the West.

If Spurs were in similar shape as Beckham, they'd be Weebles. The fact that Beckham wanted to carb them up with shepherd's pie - oh, excuse me, pie and ********ing mash, whatever the ******** that's supposed to be - shows his commitment to training falls some distance south of his commitment to make a petty point. "See! I can pay for a team meal!" Apparently Beckham didn't understand the "The Beckham Experiment" any better than Evans did.

Well, good luck to Spurs in the Champions League, I guess, but any fitness Beckham picked up while there was purely accidental. Remember Grahame Jones listing the many, many public appearances Beckham made during that alleged training? Beckham was infesting London to keep his name in the headlines, and to keep his England national team flame flickering. Those are his interests, and that's why he chose to hurt the Galaxy by refusing to join the team in training.

But why is Evans so intent on getting every observable fact about Beckham laughably wrong? I mean, check this out:

It sounds plausible, in a smarmy way. "You should be glad Beckham spends any time with you ungrateful foreigners at all" is a squeal that will endure for as long as Beckham has money to pay a publicist.

But for one thing - what television show would book Beckham, except as a last minute replacement for the kids from "Glee"? Picture a fan in a Beckham Galaxy shirt. When was the last time you've seen one? And did it have the new, crappy font, or the old one from 2007? Mainstream America rejected the Beckhams in favor of the Kardashians. He did want to appear on television and sign autographs - hence, going back to England. The longer he stays in Los Angeles, the quicker he hurtles towards irrelevancy.

Oh, and, by the way, he is strolling through his final year, so far at least. Beckham's unfamiliarity with his alleged teammates, and his unwillingness or inability to run, pass or defend, means that unless the ball is absolutely still, he's worse than useless.

But not only is Evans unable to come up with an adjective more complimentary than "hard-working," he isn't able to come up with one more accurate, either. One would almost think that he hasn't actually seen either of Beckham's games so far this year. And call me churlish, but if all he has left to offer is "hard work," then why on earth is he still being allowed to indulge his fantasy of more England call-ups? The only thing Beckham has accomplished in America is to make George Best look like the greatest scout who ever lived.

Oh, and by the way, he shouldn't be strolling through his final year. Not if he wants those England caps. Not if he wants to be signed by a Premiership team as anything other than a cheap publicity stunt.

(Is now a good time to remind people that Beckham promised never to play for any English team besides Manchester United? No? That's fine, it'll keep.)

So why say it would be understandable or acceptable for Beckham to consider phoning in yet another year in MLS? Evans claims he isn't, on the strength of no very good evidence - but why would he even be allowed to consider it? When Robert de Niro makes another godawful Fockers movie, the critics roast him for it, and rightly so. The premise isn't merely that Beckham is receiving unfair criticism, it's that he should be exempt from criticism.

Actually expecting one of our players to put in more than the minimum effort to remain upright? Who the hell do we think we are? The nerve of us. I doubt Simon Evans would appreciate paying to see a performer who didn't try. Why should MLS fans be any different?

You expect this attitude from someone who gets a tattoo of Jesus, apparently on the grounds that getting a tattoo of his own face would be like depicting Muhammad. What you don't expect is seeing so many people enthusiastically agree. I'm trying to figure out whether Evans is being stupid or dishonest - but really, why should I have to choose?

Perhaps this is the unspoken, perhaps unrealized reason why Galaxy fans are so thrilled at the idea of Beckham leaving. Once Beckham is finally gone, the donkey show will be gone, too (Team Beckham has become too ramshackle and silly to be dignified with the term "circus"). No more hangers-on, no more wannabes, no more ignoscenti, no more shitterati, no more rats, no more leeches, no more people like Simon Evans.

And people wonder why we're counting the days.