The Agony and the Ecstasy

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

2005-03-28T01:43:00.000-05:00

She is the enthused, if not enraged, advocate for Michael Schiavo, which means she is the advocate for Terri Schavo's death. I suspect that, as a new member of Congress, she is trying to make a name for herself by appearing on as many talk shows as possible discussing the "outrage" of Congress asking the courts to review the case one more time.

It's hard to express the revulsion Schultz generates in me. Not only did she fall off the ugly tree (hitting pretty much every branch on the way down and landing directly on her face when she hit the ground), she also manages to use, in my rough estimate, maybe a can of hairspray a day to keep her mane looking nice and crystally and static and plastered firmly against her upper forehead. I was under the impression that this hairstyle died a quiet death somewhere in early 1991 along with shoulderpads in womens' suits, but Ms. Schultz must not have received that memo.

I'm not sure how she was elected to Congress, but I doubt it was political acumen that garnered her the seat. For starters, look at the public's reaction to the case: the flawed ABC poll badly misjudged the public sentiment, which is why Congress overwhelmingly passed the law asking for a judicial review. Ms. Schultz, early in her career, has thus already managed to be on the wrong side of public opinion - which is fine, if you can accomplish the feat quietly, but is not fine when your face is plastered across Scarborough, Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc. and your demeanor is one of blustering indignation.

Secondly, her outrage is seems to be misplaced. What Congress did (the merits of which I agree with) was NOT to order Terri's tube to be reattached, but instead commanded the federal courts to review the merits of the case: a "de novo" review, I believe. What is the harm in that? From all indications, this was badly needed when one takes into account that her husband, whose position as next-of-kin resides from that title, is really not much of a husband anymore, having moved in and fathered children with another woman who he intends to marry. Couple that with the varying medical opinions of Terri's condition and recovery, and the other damning facts that have leaked out (a post on Powerline makes the case that the parents were simply outlawyered), and I have no idea how someone could oppose the review (the federalism statute is a different discussion, in my opinion, from whether the case does indeed merit a review). If Terri's wishes were to be removed from the tube, as Michael and Ms. Schultz contend, then shouldn't a review of the case bear out that decision?

At any rate, I think we can look forward to seeing Schultz joining the ranks of Cynthia McKinney as one of the embarassments of our federal government.

Who is Lance Dickie?

2005-03-27T02:22:00.000-05:00

Besides being a hysterical lefty, the evidence for which is his claim that Congress passing the Schiavo law is "a whiff of the American Taliban," I have not a clue how this man managed to land a column on RCP. Perhaps he has pictures of the webmasters with farm animals, I don't know. Or perhaps they simply wanted to show America the inanity of the American Left as it pertains to the Schiavo case (for another example, see Dowd's column from last Thursday).

One myth that this column buys wholesale is the poll that purports to show that Americans in overwhelming numbers side with the husband. Which would make one wonder why the Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent (nary an objection from the Dems) and the House Republicans managed to strip away roughly half of the Dems voting. . .are all these Dems politically suicidal? The more sensible answer is that they intuit something the bogus poll failed to measure: the American people don't like what is happening in Florida, and the video of parents pleading on television for their daughter's life is heart-wrenching and compelling. The poll also managed to avoid telling of Michael Schiavo's new family, his new live-in fiance, his unwillingness to give Terri proper treatment, etc., facts that have since seeped out, though not via the MSM.

But what else should we expect from the half-assed media, who apparently still fail to realize that the truth, distinctly different from the "truth" they would like middle America to hear, has already gotten out and the disparity between these two versions is striking and leaves one side in the dust. . .see: the vote in Congress.

I believe the liberals realize facts, not to mention public sentiment, are not on their side in this case, which is why unimaginative fools like Lance Dickie pull out the "American Taliban" smears. If they did believe that the facts would bear out a victory in the arena of public approval, then perhaps they would incorporate a few more of them into their columns. From my count, about the only evidence Lance Dickie is able to summon in defense of his positioin is: 1) Michael Schiavo is the husband; 2) he was awarded custody by the courts; 3) GOP talking points were despicable. Of course, there were no GOP talking points, so Dickie is down to 2 facts, around which he weaves a cornucopia of logic-barren outrage.

Finally, if we're on the business of discussing "despicable," an endeavor into which Dickie has thrown himself head-first, perhaps we should examine his lecturing to the Schindler's that "My faith and beliefs and my family's experience tell me the parents have to let go of their brain-damaged daughter trapped between life and death." Really? It's your position to tell the Schiavo's how to feel about the daughter they raised and who they're desperately trying to save? What arrogance. Of course, Dickie fails to offer any further elaboration on what experiences, much less facts in this particular case, lead him to such a conclusion.

The lesson of this column is that the bar for a liberal writer is mind-bogglingly low, particularly at a shitty mid-size city newspaper (the writers employed by my hometown paper, the DM Register, further attest to this phenomenon).

I've been dogging ESPN a lot lately

2005-03-26T02:15:00.000-05:00

so let me just say that I think Greg Anthony might be my favorite analyst on that network. He's remarkably insightful and well-spoken, which surprised the hell out of me when you consider he went to UNLV, back when those letters were simply another way to spell "thug." Tim Legler is serviceable and Stephen A. Smith should not (if there is a just and merciful God) be allowed to come within 60 miles of a broadcast camera, but I dig Greg's work. If you could pair him and Kenny Smith (Greg's only real competition for Best NBA Analyst Award) from TNT together on one program, it would be about the only sports-discussion show I would make an effort to watch.

Having said that, most of their other analysts are doorknobs, although I exempt the NFL crew from this assessment. . .well, except for when Stuart Scott hosts, given that he manages to submarine Monday Night Countdown on his own.

"No he di-inh." Stuart, please shut the fuck up.

Bush is a hypocrite

2005-03-26T01:45:00.000-05:00

Yes, we've all heard this before, but now this charge is being leveled against W in the context of the Schiavo case. I had the distinct displeasure of hearing the disgusting Al Franken opine on the matter on Scarborough a couple nights ago. The base of the charge is thus: in the last few weeks, a baby in Texas was taken off a respirator over the objections of the parents, a tragedy that was facilitated due to a bill signed by Bush when he was governor of Texas. I believe Franken also included a couple of cliched zings at the drug companies and big business (can't liberals come up with any other, more original boogeymen?), but it was late and I had mostly quit paying attention to whatever bile masquerading as "political insight" was coming from Franken's mouth.

Anyway, for a more comprehensive understanding of this bill and why it became Texas law, click on the link above. As usual, there is more to the story than the liberals are willing to countenance. But that doesn't surprise any of us.

ASIDE: also, is there a worse talk-show guest than Franken? On the rare times when I can stomach watching an entire segment in which he appears, he is vastly more interested in throwing mud than offering a substantial counterargument (of course, it is possible to offer a good counter-argument and heave a little dirt at the same time. . .but unfortunatley, the woefully inept Franken cannot even manage this relatively simple task). Case in point would be the Schiavo discussion Scarborough attempted to engage him in two nights ago. The question posed to Franken was thus: "Al, on your radio show, does your experience mirror mine on my show, in that most callers want to discuss Terri Schiavo?" Straightforward, huh? Not even a loaded political question. Franken, with the grace and verbal-sparring acumen more appropriate to a fifth-grade schoolgirl, ignored the question and launched into the attack on Bush that I outlined above. If this man is the savior of Air America, then I imagine the backers are questioning the sagacity of their investment, since Franken accomplishes the dubious feat of being both incoherent and remarkably unfunny. . .hardly the hallmark of a successful radio personality. Sadly, there is a certain segment of the population (in fact, I think a fair number of them live in my community) for whom this qualifies as intelligent discussion.

ex Survey says: Hall will shut door on McGwire; Bonds may get in

2005-03-25T15:03:00.000-05:00

Note the quotes from several Hall of Fame voters near the end of the article -- that because it wasn't "illegal" at the time McGwire and Bonds allegedly used, they shouldn't be penalized and their numbers should be taken at face value.

Taking steroids without a prescription has been illegal in this country for at least 15 years. Bonds' and McGwire's conduct may not have been against baseball's rules, but that conduct was in violation of federal law. I think this is an important point, and one of which many pundits are either honestly unaware or willfully neglectful of mentioning.

Really, this issue comes down to a question of incorporation: are all activities/conduct that violates the law to be considered, by extension, violations of the rules of the game? Well, no -- there are many activities, such as speeding, that cannot be fairly said to be against the rules of baseball. But the distinction is harder to make when it comes to the ingestion of illegal drugs, especially those taken for the sole purpose of enhancing one's performance on the field. It's a question of fair notice: were Bonds and McGwire on fair notice that their illegal conduct could be considered in violation of baseball's rules of conduct, and that their illegal conduct could affect their eligibility for the Hall, or even merely their attractiveness as candidates for the Hall? Is there really an ex post facto problem when the conduct in question was against the law at the time it was committed, but the "penalties" (like Hall eligibility) are increased after the fact?

I'm of the opinion that there is no fair notice problem; however, I can at least understand the other side of the argument. But the question of fair notice/retroactivity/fair notice should be the epicenter of the debate. Those who would attempt to parse the non-juiced vs. juiced numbers of Bonds and McGwire engage in a wildly hypothetical and utterly irrelevant exercise. For example, if, as a law student here at UVa, I were to engage in some conduct that may arguably be considered cheating -- say, taking another student's outline, copying it and pasting it into another document, putting my name on it, and calling it my own because the professor does not allow outside outlines -- there would be no inquiry into what my grade on the exam would have been had I not used the outline, or whether the outline helped me on the exam. No, the dispositive question would be, "Was the conduct cheating?" Once that question is answered, punishment would be swift and severe -- expulsion from UVa Law, no further inquiry necessary.

It's as simple as that. If what Bonds and McGwire did can fairly be considered "cheating" or against the rules of baseball, as an extension of the overall illegality of the conduct, then the penalty, in my opinion, is not a question: you don't get in the Hall. That is not to say that Bonds and McGwire should be ineligible for the Hall; each voter will have to answer the cheating question for himself. But once that question is answered, in my opinion, the inquiry should be over.

Schiavo and the courts

2005-03-25T13:41:00.000-05:00

I'd been contemplating for a couple days the essential point underlying this column by Bill Kristol: the possibility of a serious backlash against the judiciary. The Schiavo case is simply a catalyst for the discontent that has been brewing among middle America for some time, and just about came to a head several months back when the MA Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

This will be interesting to watch. I feel like judicial nominees never play much of a role in the voting of average Joes like me: there are too many other issues that command greater attention/concern (which is why I think Daschle lost for being two-faced, rather than being an obstructionist). But the Schiavo case makes me wonder if the future will be a different matter. From my perspective and given the people I've talked with, it seems like everyone pretty much agrees that the parents should be granted custodianship and Terri should be kept alive, but absolutely NO ONE can understand how the courts have constantly ruled against this end and what reasoning was employed to come to this conclusion (these are intelligent people who read the paper and keep up with the news too).

I'd welcome comments on this subject, particularly from the legally gifted (didn't someone here get a 175 on the LSAT? I mentioned this factoid to a couple pretty bright friends in law school here, and they were in awe).

The Crash of a Titan (washingtonpost.com)

2005-03-24T09:43:00.000-05:00

On Barry.

ESPN.com: The Daily Quickie

2005-03-23T10:04:00.000-05:00

Infuriating. I cannot believe that there are sportswriters out there that are buying Bonds' pathetic guilt trip and shameless use of his son as a prop to curry sympathy. HE'S PISSED THAT HE'S BEEN EXPOSED -- this isn't hard to understand, and we shouldn't be slow to point that out.

I'll write more later tonight.

Rosen: LeBron needs to do more than score

2005-03-23T09:40:00.000-05:00

I really like LeBron -- let me state that up front. But I admire this guy for having the nuts to criticize his game.

Please Cry For Me, San Francisco

2005-03-22T14:33:00.000-05:00

Apparently, Barry's got about as much intestinal fortitude as he does hair on his nuts.

I don't know about you guys, but I feel kinda sorry for him...wait, no I don't--I hope he gets hit by a bus.

"Banal and myopic"

2005-03-21T14:38:00.000-05:00

Such is the description of my column about Jordan.

Wow

2005-03-17T00:54:00.000-05:00

is all I have to say. Check out this story.

Volokh on Capital Punishment

2005-03-17T00:01:00.000-05:00

I completely agree with the point Volokh makes. Obviously, I'm out of my league when it comes to the legal issues, but as far as the idea that "certain forms of savagery deserve to be met with. . .cruel vengeance." The punishment for child rape or mass/serial muder, for example, could be expanded to include torture and capital punishment, and I would certainly cheer each change.

This probably comes from dealing with true-blue liberals all the time (who are reflexively against the death penalty), but I have no moral objections to the death penalty. In fact, I wish it were exercised in greater frequency. . .that is, I wish child rapists got the chair too. My point on this issue is simply that some crimes are so heinous that they deserve a punishment that mirrors the degree of the crime's savagery. I know that my contention isn't capable of being proven rationally (I simply believe that certain crimes should be punished by death, because the crime is so offensive the person forfeits their right to live. . .just because), but I don't see that the other side's basic contentions (which generally take the form of "it isn't just for the government to take the lives of its citizens" or some such nonsense) are any more based in reason than mine.

Whitlock: It's because Bonds is about to pass Babe

2005-03-15T19:45:00.000-05:00

Do with this what you will. I'll be cleaning up the remains from my head explosion.

Do I think some members of Congress are grandstanding? Uh, yeah. That's what members of Congress do; check out "Hardball" some time.

But do I think this has anything to do with freaking Babe Ruth? What the *&#$%@!???

I mean, seriously, I'm from Alabama. I've observed enough racism in my life to sniff it out fairly quickly. To pretend for one second that baseball's steroid scandal has anything to do with race -- going back to Babe Ruth! -- is to create an alternative universe. Whitlock, unsurprisingly, offers absolutely NO evidence to back up his suspicions about Congress' racist motive; he simply ties the fact of Congressional hearings to the fact that Bonds is approaching Babe Ruth, and VOILA! An air-tight case.

NRO on Tom Davis & Steroids Hearing

2005-03-14T23:59:00.000-05:00

Anyone care to opine here? I tepidly agree: there's no question Davis is grandstanding (and Waxman and all the other Congressmen on the committee). My entirely-un-unique theory is that Davis, Waxman, etc are betting that public sentiment is on their side, and that there is little to be lost (PR-wise) in undertaking a hearing. It gets them on the front pages of the papers, makes them look hard on moral values, and ultimately gives voice to the disgust that most voters feel when they read about all the players that were juicing. That is, voters will get a little vengeance when the players are sitting in front of cameras answering hard questions (defined as anything not asked by Dan Patrick - see below for more) about their drug usage. Whether that is a healthy function for a Congressional committee is another question.

But at the same time, why don't they haul up the real culprits, the commissioner and MLBPA heads who let the lax drug policy serve as law? Hell, they're the ones who did the real disservice - technically, Bonds, Giambi, Canseco, and so forth were all still within the rules of the game, even if they were outside the bounds of the public's approval.

I welcome comments here, particularly if you think I'm wrong on this one.

Sports Media

2005-03-14T22:59:00.000-05:00

Here's a question: how worthwhile does everyone feel the predictions made by the ESPN college b-ball crew are? My personal feelings are that, obviously, they know more about basketball than I do, in terms of stats, players, preferred defensive/offensive schemes of teams, etc. But when I see Andy Katz pontificating on how the 10-seed is a lock to beat the 7-seed, I end up wondering exactly what knowledge he has, apart from stats, that make his point.

Which, of course, is kind of silly, seeing as that picking teams should be predicated on that knowledge to begin with. But I honestly feel that sportswriters, for the most part, occupy the same general area of the spectrum as certain political pundits: they seem to be wrong a good portion of the time, but never seem to suffer the consequences. Consider the performance of virtually all the liberal pundits pre-Iraq war, where the forecast was unanimous in predicting gloom and doom, which, at this point, appears to be utterly wrong.

It also irks me that few sportswriters seem to ask the really hard questions of the athletes, whereas the political writers will at least grill the politicians (the Republican ones, anyways) over their actions. If you doubt me, please see most anything written by Peter King, the clueless football "analyst" for SI, or any softball lobbed by the poster boy for appeasement, Dan Patrick. This phenomenon has everything to do with preserving access to the athletes, who, when faced with an adversarial question, can simply cut the writer out of his loop. But I also think it has something to do with the face that most sportswriters, like most American males, would simply love to be pro athletes, and as such, maintain a reverence for their subjects that leads to the deferential nature of their questioning. I'll concede that the coaches get some hard queries, but I wish Dan Patrick would follow suit with players (if anyone saw his "hard" coverage of Gary Sheffield and the steroid controversy on Sportscenter last year, that pretty much exemplifies what I am speaking of).

Which leads me to one final point, which is that radio shows like Patrick's, to the true sports fan, inevitably come across as inferior to those like Cowherd's, the host who comes on right before Patrick on ESPN Radio. Cowherd, who recognizes that few big name athletes will ever come on his show to begin with, at least espouses convictions, rather than bland platitudes, about the controversial sports events of the day. My guess is that it has something to do with the lack of access that is granted to Cowherd, who is actually put in the somewhat liberating position of being able to call out players (I believe some of this touches on MSR's complaints about Michael Jordan).

Of course, I gave up on Patrick about a year ago, so maybe his format has changed.

Michael Jordan

2005-03-14T22:53:00.000-05:00

Last week, I wrote a column about Jordan that attempted to define why he is the greatest basketball player of all time. I know there's some ill will towards Jordan (from MSR), and I actually agree with most of his observations/complaints. It's well-documented that Jordan was a shitty teammate (he made the people around him better, but mostly by making them feel like complete shit. . .something even Jordan-booster David Halberstam makes clear in his book "Playing for Keeps," which is worth reading), he was a womanizer (so is virtually every other pro athlete, but it still is a black mark given his image and marriage), and the media gave him a pass on everything (namely, being such a shitty teammate and being a womanizer).

Anyway, Jonathan V. Last of the Standard makes a much better case for why Jordan achieved what he did, and my column is a poor man's version of his essay. Click the link above, which provides for an interesting read.

Is there any doubt?

2005-02-14T13:09:00.000-05:00

Can anyone still claim with a straight face that Bonds, McGwire, Sosa are clean?

If McGwire was so clean, why haven't we heard even the slightest rumblings about a defamation lawsuit? Answer: truth is an absolute defense...

ESPN.com: Page 2 : These Crazies don't measure up

2005-02-13T10:59:00.000-05:00

What I've been saying for a long time: the Crazies are nothing more than dorks who don't fit in anywhere else.

Jonah Goldberg on Ward Churchill and Larry Summers

2005-02-12T10:50:00.000-05:00

Mark Steyn: Europe's running out of beer

2005-02-09T08:18:00.000-05:00

Donks and Litigation

2005-02-07T23:11:00.000-05:00

If you can't persuade 'em, litigate 'em.

Why political accomplishment through litigation eventually backfires...

Bo's latest -- click here

2005-02-05T21:32:00.000-05:00

Money quote:

Grudgingly, this newspaper on Tuesday halfway conceded that maybe, perhaps, Bush's decision to keep the Jan. 30 election date was wise, and maybe, perhaps, the elections were "encouraging." Unfortunately, this admission was a "yeah, but," that allowed for the cataloguing of other ailments, real and perceived, that plague a country less than two years removed from underneath a tyrant's fist. Yet these partial congratulations raise the question: What other inspiring, defiant feats do the Iraqis have to pull off to gain the direct admiration of liberals?

Lil' Ron-Ron -- always an easy target

2005-02-05T21:17:00.000-05:00

I've been wanting to get back into the blogosphere post-election, but I've had a hard time finding the time or the motivation. The time: planning a wedding and honeymoon is a huge pain in the ass -- I wouldn't recommend it unless you're really, you know, in love and all that. The motivation: like most men I know, I am motivated more by hate/anger than by love/victory -- hence, the election really killed my buzz, as I was just getting really good at hating that French p*ssy Kerry.

Which brings me to Lil' Ron-Ron Reagan, who always provides such a nice and easy target for my inner rage. TKS hits on this theme today: that Ron Reagan has landed his own show on MSNBC -- that's right, his own GD show on MSNBC -- because: a) he's Ronald Reagan's son; b) he's liberal; and 3) he is ambiguously gay. Note that these three factors are interdependent -- without one of them, Lil' Ron-Ron is just another ambiguously gay liberal metrosexual, or at best/worst, just another son/daughter of a politician who has rejected his/her father's political ideology. But put these three simple ingredients together, and you've got Chris Matthews pitching a tent and salivating every time he's on.

What's mindblowing is that the guy has no talent whatsoever: he has no insight, he has no expertise of any kind (other than the ability to stretch the natural limits of the fashion craze that is the mock turtleneck), he has no style in his presentation. But, by God, he's got that intoxicating mix of gayness, liberality, and Reaganness that all 300+ viewers of MSNBC yearn for.

Back to reality

2005-01-31T17:31:00.000-05:00

College football recruiting has killed my interest in all other subjects. After Signing Day (Wednesday), I'm back, baby!

Like a phoenix rising from the ashes...

2005-01-10T10:41:00.000-05:00

...the Tortfeasor returns, with a few random post-holiday thoughts:

1. The political grandstanding over the Gonzales confirmation is sickening, even for Joe "The Plagiarist" Biden. As White House counsel, Gonzales was asked to assess the current status of international laws involving torture, and Gonzales made the "mistake" of giving an honest answer -- that the Geneva Convention rules may not apply to terrorist enemies. This wasn't a preference by Gonzales for the use of torture, nor was it a recommendation to the administration to use such tactics. It was simply a truthful assessment of the state of the law. And the most of the jackasses skewering Gonzales over this -- lawyers themselves -- know better. Am I surprised? No.

2. 24 is the best show ever to appear on TV. I am prepared to say this after watching my first two episodes last night. I cannot stress this enough: 24 is must-see-TV if such a thing has ever existed. I will now plan my entire week around its airing. I will now buy the first two seasons on DVD. Anyone reading this who has not seen 24 is ordered to watch it every Sunday night on Fox. As one of my friends/co-workers said, "It's like having your favorite movie come on every week, except the plot is different." I'm telling you, your Sunday nights should be booked solid with 24 and Arrested Development.

3. I was very fired up to see Mel Gibson win the People's Choice Award last night for Best Drama. However, I was a little bummed/disappointed to hear his pointed criticisms of the Bush Administration's Iraq policies on the news on the radio this morning, and I can't help but feel a little cynical about his motivations. Now, I don't doubt that Mel really does disagree with the Iraq War; I am aware that many very serious Christians are troubled by it. I admit that I have had my doubts about its wisdom from time to time, although I hold out faith that it will be a long-term success. But Mel's comments seem favorably timed perhaps to push him over the edge for the Oscar. I hope that had nothing to do with his decision to go public with his political opinion, but I can't help but wonder if he didn't see the personal benefit in going on the record as an anti-Iraq War guy. Opinions solicited.

4. Randy Moss is a true DA. Give me Marvin Harrison.

5. It's kind of depressing to watch Brett Favre get old right before my eyes. He needs to hang it up before he goes out Willie Mays-style.

As if we needed any confirmation...

2004-12-17T13:22:00.000-05:00

of how screwed up the NFL's "Rooney Rule" is--the one that requires teams to interview at least one minority before hiring a new head coach--read this article, courtesy of Len Pasquarelli on ESPN.com.

I'm not sure any additional commentary is needed here, but it absolutely blows my mind that the NFL would have two rules (the aforementioned Rooney Rule and the anti-tampering rule with regard to employees of other franchises) whose coexistence could very well result in an NFL franchise losing a potential hire. And for what? So some token minority candidate can have a patronizing cup of coffee with a franshise's owner and front office?

Before one even considers the complications arising from the coexistence of these two rules, there's a fundamental flaw in the intent behind the Rooney Rule: it is entirely unneccessary. The bottom line is that the NFL, as any professional sports league, is a business--a business that is, in almost every case, directly proportional to winning. Consequently, NFL owners are going to hire whomever gives their franchise the best chance to win, with as little regard for one's race as the size of one's manteets.

Hollachaboi: Saban Headed to Miami

2004-12-15T15:29:00.000-05:00

Apparently, Saban to the Dolphins is a done deal: $5 mil/year, full reign as GM

Mailman on the Prowl

2004-12-14T13:17:00.000-05:00

I can't believe I waited until today to share this gem.

Here's an excerpt:

Malone's agent, Dwight Manley, told the Los Angeles Times on Sunday that Malone was asked by Vanessa Bryant, "Hey, cowboy, what are you hunting?" in reference to Malone wearing a cowboy hat and boots.

"She said it twice," Manley said, "and Karl answered, 'I'm hunting for little Mexican girls.' "

I mean, what can you say about that? The UCR is off the charts here. Before you even get to the priceless quotes, how about the fact that you have an adulterer and alleged rapist publicly taking a teammate to task for making a pass at his wife? I couldn't come up with this stuff if I tried.

Thanks, NFLPA

2004-12-14T11:16:00.000-05:00

I know most of you probably don't give a damn about this, but I was pretty pissed when I came across this bit of news.

Call me naive, but I think it absolutely sucks that the NFL would sell-out with no regard whatsoever for the consumer/fan. I'd expect that shit from MLB or the NBA, but I expect better from the NFL.

Many people who played both NFL games this year (EA's Madden & Sega's ESPN NFL 2k5) felt that 2k5 was the superior game (I own it, btw), regardless of price--and the damn thing retailed for $19.99 versus Madden's $49.99 (which they were eventually forced to lower). Now, EA can offer a sub-par product and charge the full $49.99 and anyone who wants an NFL game will just have to take in the poopchute.

I have ESPN College Hoops 2k5 and it is, by far, the best basketball game I've played on any system. Once again, 20 bucks. I know the development above deals only with the NFL, but I hope it doesn't discourage Sega from continuing their other sports franchises.

UPDATE: At the risk of being subjected to unrelenting ridicule, here's the link to a petition protesting the NFL's decision to enter into the exclusive contract with EA Sports. Don't ask questions--just sign it, you bastards: Upshaw Can Suck It

"It's not a tumor!!"

2004-12-13T14:52:00.000-05:00

errr. . .actually it is.

Moyers retirement

2004-12-10T11:45:00.000-05:00

should not cause sadness in any of you gentlemen. Check out his quote regarding the "partisan right-wing media" that is dead-set on electing Republicans or other some such nonsense. This must be one of the newest lines Dems tell each other to ease the pain of losing last month - "it's not our fault, we couldn't fight the huge conservative media." Of course, all of this ignores the elephant in the room: who exactly comprises the right-wing media? Fox News? Name one other media outlet that slants to the right, Bill, and I'll concede the issue.

Federalism and gay marriage

2004-12-10T01:14:00.000-05:00

David Frum does a great job of dissecting why federalism will not be able to support the gay marriage proponents, or rather gay marriage itself. Read the article for yourself, but I tend to agree with what he is saying. I remember reading about the second case he cites, with the divorcing of two women and one moving to Virginia (Nate, I think this happened in towards the end of our first year up there). Implicitly, Frum also exposes the problems with DOMA and the thorny legal issues (again, back to federalism) that are attendant to the amendment.

By the way, isn't it amazing that John Edwards, back in one of the primary debates, had not heard of DOMA? I think it adds credence to the theory that he is: a) a political lightweight - how could he have not covered this in pre-debate prep, much less his years on the Senate?; and b) at his base, a very charismatic, attractive man who is stuck with an average brain - think Bill Clinton minus the extraordinary IQ.

The fight has begun

2004-12-09T23:12:00.000-05:00

It will be fun to watch the two factions in the Democratic Party (the anti-American, pro-Michael Moore crowd and Clinton's own DLC) struggle for control in the next couple months. I believe the election for the Chair is at the end of January. It's hard to imagine someone doing a worse job than Terry McAuliffe, but I firmly believe Howard Dean sitting atop the Committee would spell disaster for the Party for a long, long time to come. Of course, I'm assuming that the party should move to the center, an assumption that seems to have little credence among the most rabid Donks, but I can't honestly imagine how a shift left would produce more votes or translate to more Senate seats, much less win back the presidency. For a discussion I had in the DI on the subject, click here.

Denny Neagle goes skank hunting

2004-12-09T09:09:00.000-05:00

Denny, you're a millionaire. You get what you pay for, buddy.

2004-12-07T19:08:00.000-05:00

MSR cruising with his girl.

2004-12-03T09:47:00.000-05:00

Methodist jury convicts lesbian minister

2004-12-03T09:26:00.000-05:00

Shit, meet Fan

2004-12-03T09:19:00.000-05:00

I'll have more thoughts on this post-LSAT, but let me get this straight: Barry* works out every day with his childhood friend and trainer, Greg Anderson. Numerous other MLB players have testified to receiving illegal steroids (including the cream, the clear, & clomid) from Anderson, through Bonds*, and that they knew the substances were steroids. Yet Barry* maintains in his testimony that he took only the cream and the clear, which he thought were an ointment and flaxseed oil, respectively? Are you kidding me? Hey Barry*, I take flaxseed oil, ok buddy? You don't have to go to top secret BALCO labarotories to acquire the stuff--try $6.99 at GNC. Yeah, I would imagine that a professional athlete, whose body is worth millions of dollars, would simply take substances that his lifelong friend & trainer gave him without ever inquiring as to what he was taking--must've had a real open relationship.

The truth will set you free, Barry

2004-12-02T08:30:00.000-05:00

Waiting for the other shoe to drop...

2008 is coming up soon

2004-11-27T02:27:00.000-05:00

and according to Carl Jeffers, things look peachy for the Dems. Jeffers' biography line (at the bottom of the article above) states that he is a national TV political commentator, but after reading his essay, which is "analysis" in the same way that the noises I make while showering are "singing," it's hard to imagine him sitting across from, say, Michael Barone without Barone collapsing into gales of laughter every time Jeffers opens his mouth.

I realize this sounds a little harsh, but go read the article and you'll quickly see that I'm actually being quite generous. Example: Jeffers believes that the '08 Republican will be either McCain or Giuliani, and when I say "believes," it means that he ridicules the notion of Frist, Pataki, and others. How he can deduce this already, I have no idea on several grounds: first, we're still three years away from any primary. Secondly, I'm not sure how easy it is to dismiss Frist or another candidate who is red instead of purple. Remember that primary/caucus voters are comprised of the people who are essentially the base, not a bunch of Andrew Sullivan readers - their predilection to nominate an abortion-rights, gay-rights candidate is not enormous, to say the least. Moderates have been nominated before, but to claim that it is a foregone conclusion borders on rank stupidity.

Jeffers also supplies us with some incisive post-election numerical analysis, by dismissing voting trends (such as the huge rise in Hispanics that voted Republican) in favor of noting the raw stats themselves. This is so laughable that it's hardly worth the trouble it took to summarize, but let me just say this: Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population and if the Dems aren't slightly worried by the gains we made this year among that demographic, then they better plan on being a minority party for a long time to come. Jeffers' insistence that the trends of this year's election aren't indicative of a shift among the general electorate (remember, the Dems were more mobilized this year than ever before, at least in my young memory, and they still lost), and even more so, that this shift isn't worth the scrutiny and/or worry of the Dem bosses, is utter nonsense. There are better liberal writers at my half-witted student newspaper.

UPDATE: my new personal favorite motto for the Donks

2004-11-25T02:37:00.000-05:00

Do it for me, if not for yourself

2004-11-25T01:59:00.000-05:00

Ever wonder what sort of motto the Democrats should adopt for their next futile go-around in '06? (and '08 and '10. . .)

Go read a few of these things, at least through the first page - if I could offer a money-back satisfaction guarantee for your time, then I certainly would for this website. My favorite, because it's dead-on accurate, is the "Welcoming Americans of All Colors." Go see what I'm talking about.

Fallujah

2004-11-25T01:55:00.000-05:00

Though most of America (or at least most of those who occupy my corner of it) appears to be unaware of the events in Fallujah during the past couple of weeks, the stories that come out of that battle are proof that the Greatest Generation may yet be upon us. I found this letter via a post on Belmont Club. Here is a segment that is particularly amazing:

**********
The first is a Marine from 3/5. His name is Corporal Yeager (Chuck Yeager's grandson). As the Marines cleared and apartment building, they got to the top floor and the point man kicked in the door. As he did so, an enemy grenade and a burst of gunfire came out. The explosion and enemy fire took off the point man's leg. He was then immediately shot in the arm as he lay in the doorway. Corporal Yeager tossed a grenade in the room and ran into the doorway and into the enemy fire in order to pull his buddy back to cover. As he was dragging the wounded Marine to cover, his own grenade came back through the doorway. Without pausing, he reached down and threw the grenade back through the door while he heaved his buddy to safety. The grenade went off inside the room and Cpl Yeager threw another in. He immediately entered the room following the second explosion. He gunned down three enemy all within three feet of where he stood and then let fly a third grenade as he backed out of the room to complete the evacuation of the wounded Marine. You have to understand that a grenade goes off within 5 seconds of having the pin pulled. Marines usually let them "cook off" for a second or two before tossing them in. Therefore, this entire episode took place in less than 30 seconds.
**********

Amazing, huh? Think of this during the next weeks, as the media wipes an indulgent, obsequious tear from its eye at the retirement/exile of that windbag Dan Rather and breathlessly follows the saga of Scott Peterson: two pieces of garbage that both received what was their due but at a cost of bloated press. Meanwhile, we have to turn to blogs to understand real bravery, which is not voicing dissent at a justified war (sorry Susan Sarandon) but walking blindly into a room filled with machine-gun-wielding Islamists.

Happy Thanksgiving, union bosses

2004-11-25T01:51:00.000-05:00

This story really doesn't need much set-up, but to get you boys to take a look at it, I'll quote one paragraph:

"Since the United Food & Commercial Workers Local 876 called a strike Aug. 3 over an impasse on a new contract, motorists passing by daily on Gratiot honk horns and wave in support of men and women on a picket line outside the plant.

Those pickets, however, except for striking meat cutter Charles Shoebottom, are not company workers. They are hourly help hired by the union to man the line and carry signs. "

Hysterical.

It's about time somebody taught these damn kids a lesson

2004-11-23T12:13:00.000-05:00

Via Six Meat.

Ron Artest -- Caught on Tape?

2004-11-22T22:14:00.000-05:00

"I'm a big fan of the Nobel Peace Prize." -- Ron Artest

2004-11-22T21:45:00.000-05:00

This guy gets more insane by the second.

They haven't learned

2004-11-21T02:28:00.000-05:00

It is remarkable that approaching three weeks after the presidential election, the op-ed pages are still filled with bitter vitriol that is aimed not at the President or his policies, but rather at the voters who approved them. I submit the example above, courtesy of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, as emblematic of this group-think. Read the column on the left first - a thoughtful and insightful essay on what direction I (and most possessing common sense) think the Democrats should began moving if they want to be a majority party ever again.

Now read the "Rebuttal," which isn't so much a rebuttal as it is a work of spittle-flying invective. The author apparently doesn't realize that satire, while funny, is essentially treating the object of your wit with varying degrees of scorn. And amazingly, the object of scorn is as much Republican voters as it is George Bush. I point you towards the second paragraph, where it is noted that liberals "have to live with conservatives, so let's pretend we care about them." Then scoot over to paragraph three, where we find out that in order to get elected, you have to appear as stupid as the folks whose votes you are courting: "You want to run for president? Wear baseball caps and drink beer in an aluminum can. This imparts a quaint, guy-next-door persona. Voters will want to have a beer with you, talk to you and share a few laughs. You’ll be the kind of president everyone can understand, not the scary intellectual who can outsmart them. "

I expect to read such nonsense on the pages of the Nation, Mother Jones, or perhaps even the Daily Iowan, but the AJC? My guess is that the fervor of the columnist I quoted above is significantly greater (or just louder) than the Dem Leadership Council moderates, and as a result, barring a party takeover by the Man From Hope, the Dems will just move further away from the middle.

2004-11-20T10:38:00.000-05:00

ROLL TIDE

George Will says "Roll Tide"

2004-11-20T10:32:00.000-05:00

I can't believe this, but Will wrote about Alabama football in his column today, as he reviewed Warren St. John's book, Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer.

Fists, objects fly near end of Pacers-Pistons

2004-11-20T10:25:00.000-05:00

So Sprewell was suspended for an entire season for pretending to choke his coach. What happens to Artest, Jackson, O'Neal?

Benefit of the doubt - Bo in today's DI

2004-11-19T09:40:00.000-05:00

"But the media would engender greater trust among the public if they would, between three-hour specials on Abu Ghraib, occasionally find time to report on the small (read: not sensational) triumphs of the American military. Because the breathless media seem incapable of doing so, let me supply some context for the video described above. Here is a Reuters story from Nov. 15: "In one incident, some Iraqis are reported to have come out of a building waving a white flag. When a Marine approached this group, insurgents opened fire on the Marines from different directions." Then we find out (Detroit Free Press, Nov. 17) that just the day before this video was shot, this same Marine unit had a soldier killed when a booby-trapped body of a dead insurgent exploded. Lastly, the unedited video also shows another wounded insurgent holding up his hands and speaking to the Marines, who then take him as a prisoner."

RIGHT ON RED >> � Clinton Reconsidered

2004-11-19T09:36:00.000-05:00

Doesn't Clinton seem so insignificant these days?

In honor of the Iron Bowl

2004-11-17T15:19:00.000-05:00

Via a poster on TiderInsider. From The Onion.
----------------

You Will Suffer Humiliation When The Sports Team From My Area Defeats The Sports Team From Your Area.
18 April 2001
By Bill Brodhagen

As you can see from the calendar, the game is coming up this weekend. I'm sure you are as excited for it as I am, as our cities are rivals and have been for quite some time. Your confidence in your team is high, but rest assured, you will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area.
On numerous occasions, you have expressed the conviction that your area's sports team will be victorious. I must admit that every time I hear you make this proclamation, I react with both laughter and disbelief. "Ha!" I say to myself with laughter. "What?!" I say to myself in disbelief. How could you believe that your sports team could beat my sports team? It is clear that yours is inferior in every way. When the sporting contest begins, the players on your team will be treated as though they are inconsequential. It will be remarkably easy for my team to accumulate more points than yours.
There are many reasons for this, starting with the inferior physical attributes of the players representing your area. Strength, speed, and agility are just three of the qualities that the players on the team from your area lack. The players representing my area, on the other hand, have these traits in abundance.I would not be a bit surprised if the individuals on the team from your area were sexually attracted to members of their own gender. That is how ineffective they are on the field of battle.Underscoring your team's inferiority is its choice of colors. It is ludicrous to believe that your team's colors inspire either respect or fear. Instead, they appear to have been chosen by someone who is colorblind or, perhaps, bereft of sight altogether. The colors for my team, on the other hand, are aesthetically pleasing when placed in proximity to one another. They are a superior color combination in every way.
While we are on the subject of aesthetics, let us compare the respective facilities in which our teams play. While my team's edifice is blessed with architectural splendor and the most modern of amenities, yours is a thoroughly unpleasant place in which to watch a sporting contest. I know of what I speak, for I once attended a game between our respective teams in your facility. Let's just say the experience left me wishing that my car was inoperable that day due to mechanical problems, rendering it impossible for me to get to your area to attend the game.If you need another reason why the sporting franchise representing my area is superior, look no further than the supporters for the two sides. Not only are the supporters of the team from my region more spirited, but they are also more intelligent and of finer breeding than you and the rest of your ilk. In addition, the female supporters of the team from my area possess more attractive countenances and figures than yours. Some of the women from my side that I have observed could make a living by posing for pictures for major men's magazines. The women who cheer for your team, I'm afraid, are far too unattractive to do so.
One of the more pathetic aspects of the team from your area is the fact that only people in your immediate area possess an affinity for it. By means of contrast, the team from my area inspires loyalty and affection in individuals who live in many other geographic locations. To illustrate this point, let me tell a brief story: Recently, I was on vacation in an area of the country far away from my own, and I saw many individuals wearing items of clothing that bore the insignia of my team. I approached one such individual and asked him if he originated from my area. He said no, explaining that he simply liked the team from my area and had for many years. Interestingly enough, during this trip, I saw no clothing or other paraphernalia bearing the insignia of your team.
Do you still doubt that the team from your area is inferior to the one from mine? Just look at our teams' respective histories. In the past, we have defeated you on any number of occasions. Granted, there were times when your team beat my team, but those were lucky flukes.The day of the game will soon be at hand. And no matter how hard you pray to a higher power or how many foam accoutrements you wear in support of the team from your area, your team will be defeated. We will win and you will lose. This is your fate. Prepare for humiliation. It shall be upon you at the designated hour.

© Copyright 2001 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved. http://www.theonion.com/

Too white?

2004-11-16T18:36:00.000-05:00

I'm too tired to get into this right now, but I certainly think this lawsuit is absurd. What's even more absurd is that AF most likely had to settle in order to avoid costly litigation. And what's even more absurd is that the plaintiff's lawyer will take a third of that settlement. And (last thing) who exactly does the lawsuit benefit? Who has been so wronged that they deserve $50 million dollars? If this is what they settled for, then I don't even want to know what the plaintiffs were asking.

If anyone has any comments, please post them. I think this might be something worthwhile to write about for my column this Friday, although I'm sure it will inspire some hate mail, and I could use some other insights.

George Will: Validation By Defeat

2004-11-16T10:02:00.000-05:00

How many times have I said the same thing?

2004-11-16T07:31:00.000-05:00

This guy is smart.

Hate emailer update

2004-11-16T07:22:00.000-05:00

Remember dude who sent me the hate email? We've gone back and forth a couple of times -- usually consists of him trying to say something cute, but failing because he's either slow-witted or doesn't understand English all that well.

Anyway, this morning, ITC tells me they've blocked the MyDoom virus from my account. And although I can't be sure who the sender was (the address is jumbled), I feel like I know.

I'd feel pretty desperate too if I were a low-ranking reporter assigned to the Kucinich campaign in the Iowa caucuses.

The legacy of the Swift Boat Vets

2004-11-16T01:01:00.001-05:00

John Fund analyzes the effectiveness of the group in a well-written piece. Truly, the Swifties are a tremendous story, and I've never quite understood why they have been labeled as a bunch of Bush partisans (actually, I do understand it - when the media finally got on board, they decided to treat the Vets with biting condescension normally reserved for conservative activists). But these men are not Bush backers, as O'Neill's support for Edwards evinces - they simply loathe John Kerry. And rightly they should, in my opinion.

Personally, I was never that concerned with whether Kerry received medals for wounds he didn't receive or whether he embellished his wounds to get those medals or whatever. That is his own business. What is damning is: a) his testimony about the "widespread" atrocities; and b) his lying about Christmas in Cambodia.

First, if you can't figure out why his Senate testimony didn't infuriate Vets or why it is fair game, then nothing I can write will convince you otherwise. Suffice to say that his medals are Kerry's own business, but making broad, sweeping (not to mention false) generalizations about the service of thousands of soldiers to a national audience is no longer his own personal business.

Second, if Kerry wants to tell his staffers some tall tales about his war experiences, whatever; same goes for anything he tells his drinking buddies at the bar. But it's a different matter altogether to do so on the floor of the Senate, and it's another ballgame unto that to use these lies to undermine an administration. I think that deep down, most Donks probably caught on to this shameful display, since the retort to my point was always something to the effect of "well, at least Kerry served his country." Kerry made his own personal narrative into national business when he started using it as a means of advancing himself in public service. After all, the media worked themselves into a lather over PRIVATE matters of Bush's life (allegations of drug abuse and so forth); would that they had displayed a similar doggedness when it came to pronouncements on the floor of Congress.

Good for the Swifties. Hopefully they can rest somewhat easier now.

Gene Simmons votes for Bush

2004-11-16T01:01:00.000-05:00

For those of you unfortunate enough not to be exposed to the freak of nature that is KISS, Gene Simmons is the blood-vomiting, tongue-wagging bassist for the group. He's a weird man, from all interviews I've seen of him, and if he wasn't grotesquely wealthy and famous, would probably be the weird uncle at the family reunion (Simmons is sex-crazed, something that becomes apparent about 15 seconds into every single TV interview I've seen).

But apparently he also has some pretty good intuition regarding the world. His quote, lifted from Yahoo! News:

"In time of war, if you go through a bad neighborhood, I don't want a little French poodle, I want a rottweiler on my hands."
-- KISS frontman GENE SIMMONS, on why he voted for U.S. President GEORGE W. BUSH over JOHN KERRY.

Indeed. Would that more rock stars displayed such sanity.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Gene's wife is the queen of Skinemax, Shannon Tweed, who has opened the eyes of many an adolescent male on pre-driver's-license Friday evenings.

2004-11-14T14:54:00.000-05:00

At the time, it seemed like a great decision.

Power Line: The death of Mr. Bastard

2004-11-14T14:02:00.000-05:00

MSR, I know you're devastated.

Losing OK Donk Senate candidate in TNR: Vote Righteously!

2004-11-13T12:28:00.000-05:00

Brad Carson, the unsuccessful Dem Senate candidate in Oklahoma, writes an insightful piece on the culture war in The New Republic.

....For the vast majority of Oklahomans--and, I would suspect, voters in other red states--these transcendent cultural concerns are more important than universal health care or raising the minimum wage or preserving farm subsidies. Pace Thomas Frank, the voters aren't deluded or uneducated. They simply reject the notion that material concerns are more real than spiritual or cultural ones. The political left has always had a hard time understanding this, preferring to believe that the masses are enthralled by a "false consciousness" or Fox News or whatever today's excuse might be. But the truth is quite simple: Most voters in a state like Oklahoma--and I venture to say most other Southern and Midwestern states--reject the general direction of American culture and celebrate the political party that promises to reform or revise it....

2004-11-13T10:58:00.000-05:00

Roll Tide

2004-11-12T23:30:00.000-05:00

"You have no idea what a skank I am, do you?"

Michael Jordan

2004-11-12T22:12:00.000-05:00

Okay, after a day of mulling things over, here's my judgment on MJ (subject to revision):

First, I probably agree with a lot of what MSR thinks about the man. He certainly doesn't come across as a very nice person when you actually look deeper than the hagiographic books, articles, and ESPN specials devoted to the man. Even the book I read about him, "Playing for Keeps" by Halberstam, MJ has moments where he appears to be a complete ass - and this is in a book meant to celebrate him.

And I'm a Jordan admirer only in the sense that he was a winner, something that I think is pretty hard to debate. Certainly the biggest winner in recent sports history, if not ever. And to me, this is what is so fascinating about sports - there is always a winner, and there is always a best. Contrast that to Hollywood, for example, where there are never any definitive winners; there is no objective measurement by which the Oscars are awarded, it's simply whoever the voters like the most that year. For me, part of the real draw of sports is the fact that we watch, quite simply, the very best in the world, and not only that, we KNOW they are the very best. I can walk down to the UI theater department and probably find someone who can act as well as Ashton Kutcher, but there isn't anyone in the state of Iowa who can throw the football like Brett Favre.

That is ultimately why I am sort of enamored with Jordan: he was the greatest player in a league full of men who were the very best basketball players in a world of 6 billion humans. It's hard for me to articulate it beyond that, but I can't imagine being one of the top 100 in America at something, much less the best in the world. It certainly spoke to his legacy when, upon his return to the Wizards, a lot of the players were apprehensive about playing with him, since they grew up idolizing the man.

Again, as a person, he leaves a lot to be desired. The Washington Post did a series of articles about the Wizards when Jordan came back, and he didn't even come across very well in those articles. Then you throw in the paternity lawsuits, the way he treats his teammates, the way he preyed on weaker teammates for his own gain; none of it makes me think I'd like to spend a lot of time with him as a person. But I think that's probably true for a lot of great athletes, with the exception of maybe Brett Favre (a Mississippi boy was addicted to painkillers - does it get cooler than that?) and Sir Charles. Look at Larry Bird, who has never come across as a very warm or caring person; look at Jim Brown and his domestic abuse stuff; and this isn't even counting all the guys who have had varying degrees of trouble with the law.

All of this to say that I probably agree with MSR when it comes to Jordan as a person and how the media basically gave him a free pass for his entire career. But I have never thought he was much of a human being, but I certainly think he is an astounding basketball player.

UPDATE: I should have said that I also subscribe to the theory that Jordan came back not for any love of basketball, but simply because he wanted the media spotlight again. I also think the point made by Jonathan Last, in his excellent Weekly Standard essay on Jordan, holds true: Jordan was never particularly enamored with basketball, it just happened to be the one thing he was the best at.

Friday Night Lights

2004-11-12T21:21:00.000-05:00

Saw it tonight. Overall, a very, very good movie -- not just a good sports movie. Couple of points:

Makes all the difference in the world when movies set in the South use actors from the South. Billy Bob Thornton played the head coach, Lucas Black (from Speake, Alabama, of Sling Blade fame) played the quarterback, Tim McGraw played the abusive father (and did a damn fine job). I don't know about many of the other actors, but they had real accents, and they weren't trying to act "southern."
Rarely have I seen a movie that so effectively captures the essence of the book on which it is based.
(Please excuse my ignorance here, but I'm not a movie critic or film major.) The director used a documentary/informal style of camera work -- you know, where the camera looks like its on an amateur's shoulder or something, like Any Given Sunday. And this is crucial to the film's success: it invites the viewer to pass his own judgments on what he sees on the screen. This is a story of ambivalence -- one alternately finds himself rooting for and against the Permian Panthers and their fans -- and the camera work facilitates that ambivalence. (I'm not sure if that makes sense to you, but it does to me.)
This movie, like the book, will really make you think, especially if you grew up around the obsessive high school or college football culture. Is it cultural kitsch which gives needed meaning to the lives of many small towns, or does this kind of fan obsession with the performance of kids in a game ultimately ruin the lives of many of those kids? If it's both, is the trade-off worth it?

I apologize for the pitifully written thoughts above, but the Plaintiff is watching the "Blue-Collar Comedy Hour" in the background, and I can't seem to concentrate. Hopefully, you were able to decipher roughly what I was trying to say.

Git 'er dun!

QUICK UPDATE: Two quick additional points:

I really want to emphasize how powerful some of the actors' performances were in this movie. The kid who played Boobie Miles, the team's star tailback, was incredible. In one scene (and I won't tell you what it is), the Plaintiff and I were about to bawl, and it had everything to do with his performance. Several other actors turned in great performances as well, and this had a lot to do with the casting -- the minor characters in the movie look like people I might've seen walking around my hometown. Really, this was perfect.
Browsing over at rottentomatoes.com -- which, by the way, gives the movie an overall 81% freshness rating (which is very, very high) -- I noticed one review that compared the style of the movie to Robert Altman's Nashville. Like I said above, I'm no film major, but I did see Nashville, and I thought the same thing throughout the movie. The movie simply takes a complex subject, puts it on the screen, warts and all, and allows the viewer to pass judgment.

What a dumb idea

2004-11-12T17:19:00.000-05:00

I like reading PoliPundit as much as the next guy, but sometimes, that crowd is a little...silly.

McGreevey: One serious skank

2004-11-12T16:43:00.000-05:00

Peterson guilty

2004-11-12T16:41:00.000-05:00

Jury lowers the boom: 1st degree murder for Laci, 2nd degree for Connor.

Sentencing phase will commence in a week. Death penalty clearly in play.

Regarding Clarett

2004-11-12T13:08:00.000-05:00

I've read all of the articles regarding Maurice Clarett's claims of illicit benefits received through coaches and boosters at OSU, whom he claims later betrayed him, and as crazy as it may seem to some, I believe him and I'm pulling for him to succeed at the next level. Putting aside the issue of whether or not Ohio State is punished for their NCAA transgressions (and let's be clear: they should get HAMMERED) for a moment (will touch on this in a later post, I'm sure), I want to see Maurice Clarett succeed because I can imagine how almost any ultra-talented D-1 college football player could've found himself in this position. Frankly, it's a wonder that more don't, and I'd speculate that the only reason for that is that most schools are not stupid enough to handle such players the way that OSU did (as Tortfeasor observed earlier). I feel sorry for Maurice Clarett--I do think he was used and then thrown away when OSU felt that he was more trouble than he was worth (again, what a dumb move).

As for those who point out that Clarett was complicit in receiving the NCAA-forbidden benefits, let me say this: I've never been one to judge a kid in college who takes handouts that are freely offered to him, and I'm not about to in this case. How many of you can say that you'd turn the money and cars down, particularly when your head coach and mentor, in whom you've put tremendous trust, authorizes it all? For those who said they'd turn it down, I'd be interested to know your socioeconomic backgrounds.

With regard to the issue of credibility, what has Clarett done to call his into question? It seems to me that the only thing one can point to is the very thing that he now seeks to rectify: his failure to be forthcoming with the NCAA when they originally questioned him about alleged violations. And, for the record, the national sports media (not to mention the NCAA, whose guilt in such instances is far more pernicious) conveniently gives free passes on the credibility front to individuals with far more dubious histories than Maurice Clarett. On that note, how can one consider Milton Kirk more credible than Maurice Clarett? At best, their respective situations are equivalent (Kirk took part in a conspiracy to sell the services of one of his high school football players, only to later "come clean"), and at worst, Kirk was a player in a much broader conspiracy with the intention of fattening his wallet and taking down an entire football program in the process. Oh yeah, and Clarett didn't break any laws.

Thoughts?

NRO vs. bigoted elitists

2004-11-12T11:49:00.000-05:00

These were some of the same ideas I tried to elucidate in my DI piece today, but of course the brainpower at NRO was able to produce something much smarter on the same subject. Check it out when you have a chance.

Arafat's real legacy

2004-11-12T11:18:00.000-05:00

Watch this, and then make your friends watch this.

Bo in the DI: "Acceptable bigotry"

2004-11-12T10:45:00.000-05:00

Bo lowers the boom on the hypocritical liberals who evidently believe that bigotry towards Christians is not only acceptable, but "chic."

Money quotes:

....The left has never been shy about its disdain for evangelicals, who somehow deserve less of a vote than the "young voter" herd of sheep that follow Michael Moore or P. Diddy - a herd that is voracious for politics when it comes packaged as a Bruce Springsteen concert, but found its fervor wanting upon realizing that voting booths are exponentially less glamorous than a P. Diddy video....

....And it is understandable that Smiley & Co. are so fearful of tyrannical Christians, whose malevolent soup kitchens for the homeless and diabolical missions to Africa are indeed ominously menacing....

....It is justly abhorrent to be racist; it is equally despicable to be anti-Semitic. But it is chic as hell to direct bilious vitriol, as the above authors do, at Christians.....

....[T]hey had better shut up and shut up soon. Do they think that Christians cannot read, that Christians don't have access to the New York Times, that Christians are not quietly absorbing the malicious invective being directed at them?

You better read the whole thing. Pure destruction.

Krauthammer

2004-11-12T01:19:00.000-05:00

Everyone needs to read this. Krauthammer destroys the CW that the evangelical, backwards Christian bigot (insert additional pejorative terms to suit your own personal tastes) swung this year's election, particularly w/r/t the gay marrage initiatives - complete with stats and poll numbers to back up his claim.

VDH has to be my A#1 all-time favorite conservative writer, but Krauthammer is sure sneaking up there. What a devastating column.

2004-11-11T23:41:00.000-05:00

Marvin, f***! This is what happens when I use Wade's hairbrush!

In case you had any doubts

2004-11-11T21:58:00.000-05:00

about Arafat's moral character (such doubts are likely limited amongst these readers, as opposed to the employees of the Carter Center), then click on the link above and find out exactly how much money Arafat's wife is receiving from the PA.

I'd also like to point out that the US gave massive amounts of money to the Palestines; if memory serves me correctly, I believe it is somewhere in the top three recipients of foreign aid (along with Israel and Egypt, though I'm not sure of the ordering). Some senator ought to start making some serious political hay out of this matter, since it appears that this money obviously did not benefit the intended parties - the Palestinians. Why should taxpayers have to pay for this? And why don't we hold the new government of the PA to more exacting standards than we apparently did for Arafat's regime, and extract promises about more transparant accounting before we send any more US dollars their way?

Meanwhile, the worthless Jimmy Carter is busy singing the praises of Arafat. Both men are Nobel Peace prize winners and fittingly, both are worthless when it comes to international politics - one intentionally corrupt and one too dumb to realize when he is being corrupted (see: North Korea, 1994).

I'll comment on the Jordan stuff later tonight - I did read that excerpt and he does come across poorly.

There has been a terrible mistake!

2004-11-11T19:39:00.000-05:00

The real Michael Jordan?

2004-11-11T14:24:00.000-05:00

I heard a fascinating interview on Jim Rome today with Michael Leahy, the author of the new book about Michael Jordan's stint as a pro basketball exec and his final comeback with the Wizards, When Nothing Else Matters. Click here to read the introduction to the book (you won't regret it) and some of the reviews out there.

In the interview, Leahy explained that Jordan was considered a failure as an exec, basically because he put little to no effort into the job -- strange for a guy whose work ethic on the court was unparalleled. Leahy also attempted to debunk the myth that Jordan returned "for the love of the game," instead insisting that Jordan's return to the court had much more to do with an uncontrollable desire to be at the center of attention.

Perhaps more disturbing, Leahy described Jordan's "abuse" of his teammates, both as a member of the championship Bulls and with the cellar-dwelling Wizards. (He mentioned Kwame Brown and Horace Grant, in particular.) Further, Leahy lamented the fawning coverage Michael received from members of the press who feared being denied access to him, specifically recalling the way Michael shut out Sports Illustrated after they ran a single unflattering article about his unsuccessful minor league baseball stint -- this notwithstanding the 50+ positive cover stories about Michael SI had run prior to the article.

I have no idea how accurate the book is, but I did find the allegations thought-provoking. I know MSR is a certified Jordan-hater, whereas Bo is more of Jordan-admirer, so this should make for some interesting commentary.

Like I said, click on the link above to get a better idea about the book's thesis.

Clarett, OSU, and the NCAA

2004-11-11T14:20:00.000-05:00

Will the NCAA ever turn its focus to the Big 11?

UPDATE: It's really hitting the fan now. On its front page, ESPN.com is running this article, alleging that Jim Tressel has been paying players since his day's at Youngstown State.

UPDATE II: Here's the original ESPN The Magazine article that has caused the stir.

Real World/Road Rules Challenge

2004-11-11T14:03:00.000-05:00

I'm a little embarrassed to be posting this immediately after Tortfeasor's thoughtful essay below, but this little analysis of the MTV section of the pop-culture wasteland is right on. It's by the Sports Guy too. I will only say that he touches on one thing that I have always wondered about the people on these challenges: don't they have jobs? Most of them were on RR or RW somewhere between 2 and 8 years before, making them approximately 24 to 30 years old. Shouldn't they have jobs? I say this only because I seriously doubt any employer would give their employee a month off work to compete in a MTV game show, particularly one as asinine as this.

Honestly, it's somewhat depressing to watch all these former B celebs try to hang on to their glory years, but it's also fun. And Simmons is right about the homoerotic melting of the ice challenge - I happened to see that one two weeks ago, and wondered how exactly these men could look themselves in the mirror afterwards.

That radical Bush

2004-11-11T09:57:00.000-05:00

I keep hearing about how Bush is so radical, so conservative, and so aggressive in tearing down the wall between church and state.

Maybe I'm slow -- that' s always a possibility, considering I'm from one of the "dumb states" -- but how does one look at the totality of Bush's policies in his first term and find "radical conservatism" or "aggressive Christianity"?

Tax cuts for everybody -- tax cuts are associated with conservatives, to be sure, but Bush's tax cuts were intended a) to benefit everybody, which they did, and b) to return the tax rate to pre-Clinton levels. I suppose one can shoehorn this into the conservative column, but radical? Let's move on.

Prescription drug benefit for Medicare -- absolutely nothing conservative about that. Check out the reaction to this move by the folks at NRO, the Weekly Standard, etc. They were livid.

No Child Left Behind -- the accountability part: conservative, I suppose, though requiring our public schools to meet certain growth goals shouldn't be "conservative" or "liberal." But NCLB also has the effect of giving less control to states and localities in the education realm, and this is certainly not a conservative policy. Reagan wanted to abolish the Department of Education altogether, if you'll remember. NCLB can't go in the conservative column, either, even though it infuriates the NEA.

Partial-birth abortion ban -- this is about as mainstream a position as one can take, as the vast majority of Americans oppose the gruesome procedure. Only those politicians who are balls-deep in with NARAL could vote against the ban. "Health" of the mother was nothing but a red herring, or more like a loophole, designed to allow the procedure to continue. Bush and others knew better. Sure, this is consistent with conservatism, but it surely can't be considered radical.

Immigration policy -- are you kidding? Conservatives were furious over this one.

Tepid support for FMA -- this one is conservative. Bush supported the FMA out of political/electoral concerns, and did so in name only. He did nothing to urge its enactment, but simply wanted to be on record as having supported it. But conservative, to be sure. Fair enough, but then you've got to accept....

Tepid support for renewing Assault Weapons Ban -- Bush supported extending the AWB, although he did not exactly use the bully pulpit to urge its renewal. But we went on record as supporting the ban, certainly not the conservative position.

Increased funding for NEA -- what could be less conservative? Again, conservatives want the National Endowment for the Arts (or was it Humanities? Can't remember) abolished. At the same time, I understand the mission of the NEA/H has changed, so instead of subsidizing perverse/"cutting-edge" art, the endowment encourages more community access to classic theatre, etc. Verdict: not conservative.

Aid to fight AIDS in Africa -- simply put, not conservative.

Faith-based initiative -- first of all, didn't get out of the gate. Second, this is NOT the establishment of religion in any way -- it simply allows religion-affiliated charities to compete for federal funds to do what they do best: serve others. No religion or denomination is to be preferred. One could argue that this is a socially liberal policy, an attempt to make government welfare programs more effective through outsourcing to groups who specialize in helping people. Again, it never passed, but I'm not sure this one qualifies as somehow radically conservative. Whatever.

Stem cell research -- although you'd never know it from the mainstream media, Bush has actually taken the moderate position on the issue, allowing research on existing adult stem cells to go forward -- even funding it -- but halting embryonic stem cell research. Most people have no idea that there is any difference, which is reflected in the opinion polls on the issue. Still, this isn't a radical position, especially considering that adult stem cell research shows so much more promise than embryonic stem cell research.

The Patriot Act -- I suppose this is the one that really gets under the liberals' skin. Two questions, though: 1) this doesn't have anything to do with "aggressive Christianity," does it? and 2) name one violation of your civil liberties that has taken place since the PA's enactment? Ah, I see: "no" and "none." The Patriot Act was, in my opinion, entirely necessary in the wake of 9-11, when we were still so disoriented that we couldn't see our enemies. Less of a response would have been irresponsible. And as long as the War on Terror continues, the PA seems justified, especially since I've yet to see a shred of evidence of real civil liberties violations. Call it conservative if you want, but then be glad a conservative was in office on 9-11.

Afghanistan war -- would have been undertaken by any president, liberal or conservative, I hope.

Iraq -- some may be thinking of Iraq when they call the president radical. However, it's not altogether clear to me that the decision to go to war in Iraq is to the right on the political spectrum of traditional, or paleo-, conservatism. It was a neoconservative decision, but does neoconservatism necessarily fall to the right of Pat Buchanan? It involves nation-building, the commitment of US forces to humanitarian missions, etc. -- the kind of foreign policy many paleoconservatives criticized Clinton for running. At the same time, I can understand how some consider the Iraq decision to be on the far right, as it seemed to stretch the "just war theory" about as far as it could stretch.

Spending bills -- basically, Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill since he's been in office. This has angered many, many conservatives, and many of them don't consider the President a conservative because of his unwillingness to hold the line on spending. The federal government, regrettably, has grown on Bush's watch -- certainly not a trait of a conservative.

Bottom line: looking above, I see some admittedly conservative positions mixed with more moderate, and dare I say, liberal positions on other issues. Perhaps I missed the executive order that President Bush must have signed, forcing American schoolchildren to memorize a Bible verse every morning.

So what it is it, exactly, that drives these folks up the wall about the president? I think it has a lot more to do with style than substance. What do I know, though? I'm just a dumb red-stater.

Arafat's real obituary

2004-11-11T09:50:00.003-05:00

"High achievers leaving schools behind"

2004-11-10T15:02:00.000-05:00

Found this MSNBC article via a great blog, The Untergeek.

....Umaid, now a third-grader at Oak Hill Elementary in Herndon, is one of 112 Fairfax students who changed schools this year under the federal No Child Left Behind law. The legislation is intended to give struggling students the chance to move from high-poverty, low-performing schools, but Fairfax school officials have found that the students who take the transfers generally aren't the ones who need extra help.

Instead, they are like Umaid: higher-scoring students from middle-class homes. The trend, evident in suburban school districts nationwide, means that the receiving schools don't have to augment their remedial programs or worry about test scores dropping. It also means that resources spent on transfer students aren't going to the students who need them most, some educators said....

But, you know, what’s so wrong with that?

As most of the people reading this know, I used to teach 7th grade in one of these failing schools – I was a Teach For America corps member for two years in a rural southern school. And I definitely told some of the parents of my brighter students – the parents who actually cared enough about their children’s education to come to conferences and answer the phone – that they should consider trying to get their kids into other area schools that could better meet their needs. My responsibility was to the kids, not to the school.

The tragedy of failing schools manifests itself in many ways: the most obvious, of course, is that many students fail to acquire the most basic skills; but the arguably worse result, in my opinion, is that many students with enormous potential are essentially trapped in schools that do not have the resources or will to tap into that potential.

Both results suck, and we’d like to change them both. We need to work to change them both, and NCLB accountability is the first step. But we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good – if failing schools continue to fail, I believe it is our moral obligation to allow students to escape. The best students, almost invariably, are the ones whose parents care enough to make them do their homework every night and come to parent-teacher conferences, and these are the parents who will take advantage of the vouchers. But the alternative – making those brighter students go down with the sinking ship – is worse.

First-hand account of Fallujah

2004-11-10T14:13:00.000-05:00

This is awesome:

Watching the green screen was nerve-racking. With buildings wrecked and streets churned up, there were potential booby traps everywhere. Then, as the column lumbered down a main road, the guerillas appeared.

They emerged from gates, alleyways and rooftops, alone or in small groups. Wherever they faced an armoured vehicle, they died where they stood.

The resistance was determined, but hardly the apocalyptic showdown the guerillas had pledged. They had threatened to throw hundreds of suicide bombers at the Americans. But in the darkness they were at a disadvantage, stumbling blind while the US gunners could see clearly.

What's up with the Arafat situation?

2004-11-10T14:09:00.000-05:00

Something fishy about the Arafat situation -- he's dead, he's not, he's brain-dead, he's turning cartwheels in his hospital room?

Tom Maguire thinks so.

"Good Riddance"

2004-11-10T14:04:00.000-05:00

So says the editor of The New Republic to John Kerry.

This is a great read.

Generosity Index

2004-11-10T10:14:00.000-05:00

The Catalogue for Philanthropy has released it's 2004 Generosity Index, which measures each state's charitable contributions in relativity to it's average income. As Deacon at PowerLine said, "keep scrolling until you find a blue state."

A passing thought

2004-11-09T13:26:00.000-05:00

My first hate e-mail, printed below, got me thinking about the dude's complaint that folks in the South try to convert you every time you turn around.

Seems to me that those on the Right may try to convert you to Jesus, with the promise of eternal life in Heaven.

But those on the Left will never give up in trying to convert you to Marx with the promise being...Cuba?

Am I wrong here?

Tips for a New Democratic Majority

2004-11-09T11:06:00.000-05:00

(Via Instapundit.)

Conrad's Tips for a New Democratic Majority:
1. Appoint Terry McAullife Party chairman for life. If McAuliffe isn't available, this guy would be great.
2. More Massachusetts liberals. Give Teddy his turn.
3. Explain to 51% of the electorate that they're stupid. They will eventually realize that you are smarter than they are and will vote as you tell them to. It has only taken them this long because they really are sooo fucking stoopid.
4. More CBS News exposes.
5. There's no such thing as too much Michael Moore.
6. A nationwide Guardian letter writing campaign.
7. Don't just legalize gay marriage, make it mandatory.
8. Can Bob Shrum run a campaign or what?
9. A federal law making rolling one's eyes a criminal offense.
10. "I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton and I'm reporting for duty."
11. Close the telepathic subliminal electioneering gap.

Hilarious.

My first hate mail

2004-11-09T09:09:00.000-05:00

This is an emotional moment for me. BTW, this is the original formatting -- the guy must have thought he was using a typewriter.

Here it is:

Howdy pardner,
Whats up? Thanks for giving me a great laugh this morning. Educated in Alabama? ha. Thats an oxymoron.
I can empathize with you for feeling outraged about Brittany Shoot's column,
but truth be told, she did make a lot of sense.
As someone who spent the summer in Bristol, Va/Tn and travelled around a lot
of the southwest part of your state, I know damn well what i'm talking about. The confederate flags and Nascar paraphernalia that saturated the region is
proof enough. Having worked as a reporter, I know that people down there
worship ignorance and have a mindset affected by an irrational, archaic dogma
that encompasses religious and racial elitism and a deluded sense of the world. I've experienced it first hand and it ain't pretty. They believe what they're told and refuse to view different sides of an issue. I find it easier and much more enlightening to have a conversation with
someone from the states Shoot mentioned rather than talk about NASCAR,
Gretchen Wilson and whatever else you guys do down there.
Plus up north, I probably won't run into someone who tries to convert me to
their religion at every step I take.
Maybe I just don't get the hard on that you southerners get when you see a
bunch of cars driving around in a circle or i'm missing the point. By the way, congrats on getting into law school and good luck chasing after
those ambulances.

To which I say: chasing ambulances? That's for your boy John-John Edwards.

Battle for Fallujah

2004-11-09T02:51:00.000-05:00

What a remarkable fighting force our military is. The insurgents, as this post (with information cobbled together from several news sources) catalogues, are fighting a desperately futile battle - the military has adjusted to their tactics of hit-and-run, and are now picking off the insurgents one by one. It is remarkable and frightening display of brutal calculation, but simply reassuring: our troops are kicking ass.

I actually thought this was funny

2004-11-09T01:48:00.001-05:00

I think this is serious, but it's so far over the top that it's basically a satire. Whoever wrote this wins some points for the line about Vermonters and Subarus.

At the same time, it's tough to imagine a Northeast liberal male writing something like this, since most of them are emasculated, PC-fluent metrosexuals. Same goes for any Hollywood liberal male, like Jason Biggs. I think I've mentioned my hatred of him somewhere on this blog before, but it all traces back to when I saw him at an MTV Movie Awards interview, and he pointed at his John Kerry button with all the self-righteous arrogance of someone who has made entirely too much money at entirely too young an age without putting in the sufficient effort it should take to earn such sums of money. I feel the same way about Ashton Kutcher, who for reasons unbeknowst to me still has a career. It certainly doesn't help that they are both shitty actors.

Honestly, it just makes me can't-see-straight angry that Hollywood kids (including but not restricted to the two I mentioned above. Actually, pretty much all of young Hollywood, except Republicans Freddie Prinze Jr and Jessica Simpson), who have come into their massive wealth with such ease and without having to put in the years of backbreaking work that normal folks (ie, lawyers, doctors, businessmen, small business owners) have to invest, somehow feel they have earned the right to tell these normal folks that they should pay a much higher percentage of income tax. To me, that is the arrogance that comes with getting things that you haven't really earned; being given vast sums of money without understanding how much money that is, or how hard normal people have to work (in terms of years in school, backbreaking debt as a result of that schooling, opportunity costs, 70-hour work weeks and so forth) to obtain even a fraction of that wealth.

What arrogance.

ohpleaseohpleaseohplease

2004-11-09T01:48:00.000-05:00

Let it be true. . .

Can you say "60-Republican Senate in 2006?"

Secession

2004-11-08T23:33:00.000-05:00

I sure wish someone had told me earlier that the South was seceding again. I would have moved down there this summer - although apparently Iowa is also part of the secession (having gone red this time around). Or are we being seceded from? This ignorant, unintelligent voter and confessed "ugly bastard" is confused.

The good part is that since the Blue states are all pacifists, or at least believe that ANY war is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, we'll win the war without lifting a finger. I call first dibs on pillaging Katha Pollitt and Katrina Vandenheusel's houses. Of course, we can make special stops for both of them on the 2004 incarnation of Sherman's March to the Sea.

Nothing in recent memory has given me as much pure joy as watching the pity party that the Left is holding. Nothing at all. Relish the pain, boys.

The South...has risen again?

2004-11-08T14:05:00.000-05:00

Power Line says, according to a reader, that Laurence "they're coming to take me away -- haha!" O'Donnell, on the McLaughlin Group, seriously floated the idea that the blue states should consider seceding from the Union over the next 20 years.

Let...me...get...this...straight.

We in the South have promised to "rise again" now for 140 years. Did it just happen -- without firing a shot, but merely by electing the one dude who could drive the Yanks absolutely insane?

I mean, I don't want to overreact here, but...

**REBEL YELL**

DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE ASS ON THE WAY OUT, YANKEE!

**SHOTGUN FIRED IN AIR**

UPDATE: The Washington Times has an article about the secession buzz. (Via Powerline.)

James Q. Wilson on the election

2004-11-08T10:59:00.000-05:00

Mark Steyn Gets It

2004-11-08T10:54:00.000-05:00

This is a great read.

We have publication

2004-11-08T07:55:00.000-05:00

Letter printed in the DI today.