Indiana-Duke Pregame

Can Indiana withstand Duke's defensive pressure? IU has proven that they have 4 or 5 capable 20 point scorers, but Duke will step-up on them and pressure the ball early. Senior Point Guard, Lewis Monroe will be able to showcase what they brought him in for tonight. He needs to keep the offense in rhythm and make sure that everyone is moving away from the ball as Marco Killingsworth is doubled down low.

In case that isn't enough, Monroe will be taking All-American Reddick man-to-man tonight. Monroe was responsible for guarding Big Ten leading scorer, Bracey Wright in practice all year last year. He is used to being a pest and making established scorers get creative to get their points.

Defensively, the key is for Killingsworth and Monroe to stay out of foul trouble, while keeping the pressure on Williams and Reddick. Much easier said than done.

All the commentators have been sucking from Duke's teet as they look at the Davis-led Indiana squad with a cautious eye. I think Indiana has an excellent chance to win this game and although Assembly Hall is going to be loud and hostile, Duke is pretty freaking good and has been there before. Mike Davis may have his chance tonight to show what he can do against a top team without the selfish-play of Bracey Wright affecting his team.

Game on!!!

Randy Cunningham Earns His Black Heart

Penraker has a written a great career obituary for the now disgraced and ignominious Randy Cunningham. His crimes, which are numerous, have had a far reaching effect: he shamed himself, his country, the people who elected and trusted him, and those who have proudly worn our country's uniform with pride.

Shame on you Randy Cunningham. You deserve what is coming to you.

Sunnis Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The religious and ethnic dynamics within Iraq are putting the Sunnis in a really tough spot right now. After years of enjoying the benefits of being the ruling minority, the Sunnis may have sipped some hemlock when they signed up with al-Qaeda in the attempt to fight and expel the American-led invasion.

After spending the last few years playing an integral part in financially and physically supporting these terrorists who have spent most of their energy bombing mosques and children, it seems like the Sunnis are the ones fearing reprisals:

Sunni Muslim civilians are increasingly claiming that men in their families have been abducted and in many cases, tortured and killed, by men they say appeared to be officers of the Shiite-led Iraqi government.

According to the New York Times, one of Baghdad's largest mosques has begun collecting data on disappeared Sunnis and so far has the names of 700 men allegedly missing or killed in such incidents within the past four months. The Iraqi Interior Ministry says reports of government involvement are "totally wrong."

For those that have been intimately following events in Iraq, this is not much of a surprise. There have been acts of retribution doled out by rival tribes since the days of Babylon. Observers, especially in the West, have feared the onset of a civil war, but it is already here. Actually, it has been going on since Saddam ruled, but now instead of the Sunnis having the upper hand, they are finding themselves at the bottom of the pile.

However, their is another civil war that is just getting under way. This one is occuring within the Sunni ranks revolving around the decision to either join the new government, or remain on the business end of the ever strengthening, American-backed, Iraqi Security Forces. Unfortunately, death also awaits those pragmatic Sunnis that understand their only hope for survival in Iraq lies with joining the government. Al-Qaeda understands that their ability to operate in Iraq is entirely reliant upon a cooperative Sunni population, so while the western news covers al-Qaeda's macabre behavior in bombing Shiites, Kurds and Americans, they have quietly been brutalizing, murdering and terrorizing those Sunnis who have dared turn their backs on them in hopes of joining the government.

The Sunnis are stuck having to decided between two bad choices: death or death. If they choose to stand and fight, they'll reap death and possible annahilation from the Iraqi-Security forces, the Americans, and even worse, Shiites seeking tribal justice. If they decide to join the government, those who stand-up against al-Qaeda will be faced with brutal death, while those Sunnis who have blood on their hands will continue to be dealt with by Shiites tribes seeking revenge.

The Sunnis need to cut their losses and, for them, choose the least bad choice: joining the government. The near future for the Sunnis is going to be bloody and horrible, but at least joining the political process can result in some hope for the future. Both choices will be met with death, but the latter option is extinction.

Not much from me tonight. I just got back from work about 10 minutes ago, so I'm drained.

I'm going to pour a glass of Hirsch and read the rest of Raymond Chandler's Farewell, My Lovely.

Marlowe would love this Hirsch stuff...

More on the NY Times

Ian Wood, who has been one of the foremost thinkers who has influenced and articulated the way I approach reading the media, wrote a long comment to my post commenting Marc Schulman's denouncement of the NY Times below. Here is the meat of Ian's comment:

To wit:

Those who argue for a reduction or elimination of media bias, to be somehow carried out by the media itself so as to maintain its illusory independence, are the equivalent of a 5th-century Athenian arguing that anyone who made a speech had a duty to present only the undisguised truth and make no attempt to sway his audience with any rhetorical tricks.

The only reason people want guaranteed objectivity from their information sources is because they're mental slobs. Lazy, passive absorbers of factoids who don't want to have to think very hard about what's going on in the world, who's telling them about what's going on in the world, and what relationship those two information streams have to each other and to reality. They would like it very much if their information came in easy - to - digest packets of strained goo.

But it doesn't, it never has, and if someone tells you otherwise they're either fooled or lying to you.

Today's media consumer is responsible for his own intellectual development and the fine-tuning of his own discernment. If someone is foolish enough to be affected by the NYT's photographic choices, it does not then become that newspaper's duty to change its ways in order to better accomodate the readily confused.

Maybe I'm misapplying or misunderstanding your argument, but I don't think what you said contradicts anything in Marc's or my post. Marc quoted a bunch of editorials and didn't chastise or critize them for writing biased news articles. The criticism regarded the content of the their editorials over Iraq during the Clinton era, and the implicit agreement that I had with Marc was that their shift in views conveniently coincided with the indivudual that sat in the Oval Office. In other words, the axiom which the NY Times bases its views on is driven by partisan politics, not a pragmatic or critical look at what is best for the United States and the world as a whole.

Now, for those of us news junkies that have been following this shift in the NY Times thinking over the years, this is kind of a "duh" moment. But, I do think it is extremely relevant to point out just how the NY Times, in their own words, seemed to advocate the positive benefits of the projection of power in a country that, now, they are claiming should have been left alone.

These are but a handful of examples pointing to the larger problem--the crux of the debate over Iraq has been mostly driven by partisan politics. Partisan politics doesn't seek to solve any problems other than retention or seizing of power. This is why the Democrats are absolutely mongoloid in articulating how to win the war in Iraq. In order to win, they would have to acknowledge that there is actually is a war that needs to be won, and this war is something that was brought to our shores on September 11th. Bush, who is their politcal enemy, has acknowledged this, and from a partisan poltical point it would be admitting defeat if they were to jump on board.

Are their legitimate arguments to be made against the war? Sure there are, even though I don't agree with them. But these arguments are not driving debate among the American people right now, so I find them academic and inconsequential at this point.

While I'm on this side note, personally, I don't really give a hoot which political party is leading the country as long as they understand that winning the war against those who want to destroy us (and children who take candy from American soldiers) is priority number one. The Democrats have not come close to demonstrating this, so until that happens, my lever is going to pull a lot of R's before this is over. That is pathetic, in that I voted for the Republican challenger to Barbara Boxer last year who was an empty suit. Without the aid of Google, I can't even remember his name.

Marc Schulman Quotes the "Paper of Record"

Marc Schulman, in a gargantuan Googling effort, quotes a myriad of editorials that New York Times did on Iraq during Bill Clinton's term. They seemed to be a bit more hawkish and a little more willing to project power to further American interests back then.

Here's Marc's preface:

Notwithstanding their preference for inspections, the editors did not shy away from advocating the use of air strikes – including unilateral American air strikes – if the obstacles constructed by Saddam made it impossible for the U.N.’s inspectors to fulfill their missions. The Times endorsed every U.S. military operation ordered by Clinton. None of the editorials insisted that the U.S. must obtain Security Council approval before undertaking a military action, nor did they require that military operations – unilateral or multilateral – be authorized by new Security Council resolutions.

When the editors criticized the Clinton administration, it was for being too dovish, not too hawkish. They leveled similar criticisms at the U.N. Security Council. China, Russia and especially France were taken to task for giving priority to their commercial interests over coming to grips with the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD.

Read it all.

Indiana - Duke Preview

Duke is going to be visiting Assembly Hall on Wednesday night as part of the ACC-Big Ten Challenge. Seeing what Indiana has done it's rather poor quality opponents early this year has led me to believe IU is capable of beating Duke at home. I'm putting this preview up early, so we can see if what I've been seeing is right.

Even with the early injuries, there isn't a team in the country that Indiana cannot beat. In the first three games, it's not the fact that Indiana has won convincingly, it is how they are winning. They're pushing the ball up the floor and destributing the ball to whoever can get the open shot. The assist totals during the first three games has probably exceeded the entire Bracey Wright era (actually, I'd be curious to see some kind of comparision there), and each player is settling into their role as part of this team. If I'm an opposing coach watching game film right now, I clearly cannot beat Indiana by shutting one guy down, it's developing a scheme that limits the runs this team is capable of going on.

Now, after watching Duke play in the NIT this weekend, I've surmised that Indiana might have too many weapons for them stop, especially in Bloomington.

For Duke, Sheldon Williams and J.J. Reddick carry that Duke mystique along with the pre-season accolades. Williams has played well, and Drexel showed that it is possible to take Reddick out of the game.

Duke played and beat an athletic, but in my opinion very soft, Memphis team. They have yet to stand in against a bruiser like Killingsworth. The Killingsworth/Williams match-up is going to be key, and I think Killingsworth will show the rest of the country who is hungrier. Still, apart from Killingsworth, Duke is going to have to find answers for a very talented group of individuals who have learned to elevate their game as a part of a team.

Right now, my main concern is that Indiana is getting too banged up to keep a fresh pair of legs on the floor against the number one team in the country. But, Duke is beatable, and it seems like Assembly Hall is going to be fired up to give Duke the welcome they deserve.

Any predictions?

Yum-yum

Just returned from D.C. to the warm confines of Valley Forge, PA. Naturally, it is freakin' freezing out here. My flight back to California is out of here tomorrow at 8:00 am, and I will not complain one bit over a return to weather more suited for a sissy who can't stand winter anymore.

Anyway, I'll be spending the night with my family, so the blogging thing will continue to be really lame until Sunday.

Hope everyone's Thanksgiving (or in the immortal Ian Wood's words, "Dead Bird Festival") has been fat and merry. I ate way too many mashed potatoes yesterday.

How was your Turkey Day? Write a one page essay below, incorporating your favorite Thankgiving dish into a thesis about your metaphysical well-being. You'll be giving extra credit for each time you say that Cindy Sheehan is a fascist loving attention whore that even Michael Moore wouldn't poke with his belly-botton.

Nostalgia

Hi everyone. Sorry to be so lame lately, but here I am, and I have cleaned up with a shower, a shave, some Old Spice and a bouque of flowers to sit before you tonight to tell you how much I missed everyone and also to share a little nostalgia tonight. Now, if you don't actually care about any of this, I'll promise more geo-political trifle brilliance later.

I am blogging from my old bedroom in my parents house just outside of Philadelphia (Devon to be exact). This trip home is a weird one for me, as my parents are moving across the country in a few months, and that essentially makes it highly unlikely I'll be making anymore annual pilgrimages to City of "Brotherly Love" anymore. Of course, if I decide to marry Maria from South Philly that could all change, but although she has the body to stop traffic, I don't think I can make enough money to keep her in hair-spray and lip gloss. Also, I have a strong aversion to driving the modern-day IROC, the Mustang. Chances of a Philly reunion are waxing slim.

Sleeping in my old room for last time is a bit of a trip. This is the room where I learned every Van Halen lick ever played and first time that I took a girl and...

...sorry David Lee Roth just called and told me that my Mom and Dad still read this site, so I should stop here. David Lee Roth, the voice of my conscience.

Strange that I have much nostalgia for the place, as I couldn't wait to get out of here when I was here. Generally being a person that gets along with everyone, this area was quite tough to get close to anyone--especially in high school. However, although I didn't realize it at the time, I was learning a tremendous amount about getting along with difficult or closed people, and generally perservering through tough situations. I look around this room and I see the carpet stained in the sweat and tears from that time.

...wait, my mom just informed me that the stain on my carpet was actually caused from the vomit of a friend of mine that drank too much Jack Daniels on prom-night.

Well, today I took a ride with my parents out to Lancaster, PA. Amish country is, well, odd. It isn't everyday that you can say that you ate lunch in the town of Blue Ball, adjacent to the town of Intercourse, while getting seated and served by a midget.

Midgets and dwarfs, the last minority group that somehow escaped the identity politics that have decayed public discourse of any kind. I guess in the end, there are just things that are way too funny to fit under that all-inclusive umbrella.

Anyway, I'm headed to D.C. tomorrow, so it is highly unlikely I'll get to post anything. BUT, I will try to get something stuff up sporadically over holiday.

Keep sending your love, because I need it. I crave it. And David Lee Roth demands it.

GOOD Morning

So, today is a day that I get to gloat a little. I'm sitting outside, eating blueberry waffles in North Beach, wearing sandles, jeans and a t-shirt, while enjoying the fine WI-FI this establishment offers by listening to the IU/Purdue Game. Plus I'm writing to you guys because I've missed everyone this week.

Seriously.

Did I mention that it is 75 degrees?

Now, I have to leave to go back to the East Coast for the rest of the week.

Weather forecast in Philly = High 45 Low 29

Piss.

Good Start

I know that it is only the first game against a rather pitiful team, but this is why I have been so excited about IU basketball season:

Marco Killingsworth had 28 points and 13 rebounds in his Indiana debut, and Marshall Strickland added a career-high 25 points to lead No. 23 Indiana to a 99-65 victory over Nicholls State on Friday night.

Killingsworth, a fifth-year senior, sat out last season after transferring from Auburn.

Killingsworth is a flat out man-child. He is going to own the Big 10 this year.

If Indiana can stay healthy, they just might be the team to beat once they get D.J. White back. They are hungry, mean and determined to win.

Something sorely lacking in the last few years of IU hoops.

C'moooooon!

Tonight, David Lee Roth and I are going to have dinner in order to discuss strategies for gaining and maintaining a large audience. Dave is understandably nervous as he will be filling Howard Stern's shoes in a few weeks.

I told him that I can ensure winning strategies towards winning and keeping about 7 people interested.

He was obviously impressed, as he said, "That's not a microphone in my pants, I'm just happy to be here."

I wept in agony.

----

* In case anyone is wondering, I have been having to drive from San Francisco to San Jose EVERY FRICKIN' DAY this week. In traffic, that's almost 4 hours a day sitting behind the wheel. Also, I'm in training and I don't have any internet access (it is like bootcamp, without pushups and big mean guys yelling at you), so that means I am an uninformed troll at this point. No need to rant about things I am not fully informed on...

Pile that on top of trying to tell David Lee Roth how to score is really a lot of pressure man.

Leave your suggestions to pass on to Lee Roth in comments.

Did I say I'd be back tomorrow, uh yesterday?

Um, so that's like today, right?

Oh...

Well, I'm going to see Spoon at the Warfield tonight...

..no, you can't have any more blue cheese. I'm all out.

Don't tell my business devil woman...

I'll be back tomorrow...

Cheers

Pea Packer

My good friend Kyle at From the Still successfully blunted my wrath towards Indiana football with one picture.

Need Sleepy

All,

Sorry for the lame blogging. I'm working my little self silly, and well, I'm pretty beat. I've been reading some good and inspiring stuff about the war lately, however I am just too tired to write about it tonight. If I can't sleep later, I might have something for you, but I'll leave you with the essence of our Iraq strategy told from the perspective of my new alter-ego, General Patton:

Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!

In the meantime, Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities is back, and his illustration of France and California had me pissing myself.

That and the fact that I always wear a wetsuit while blogging.

What Kind of Soldier Are You?

Look at my big, fat head...

You scored as Officer. Officer, your the brass. The leader of the bunch. You have leadership qualities, or you have a really big ego. Most likely both. You know how to get things done, and don't care who you have to kill to get them done. Your a man/woman with a mission and to stand in your way means pain. You have gumption and intelligence to back it up. Hold the line!!! AND SOMEONE GET ME COFFEE!!! Officer 88% Combat Infantry 88% Special Ops 75% Medic 50% Engineer 50% Support Gunner 38% Artillery 25% Civilian 0% Which soldier type are you? created with QuizFarm.com

Multiple Choice Question

There has been a lot of talk about torture lately. Let me chime in.

While all are painful, the worst option would be:

a) Sliding down a razor blade into a pool of alcohol
b) Popping your eyeballs out with a spoon
c) Listening to Indiana football

Of course the answer is c.

The day that I decided to go to that school was the day the day that I signed up for years of listening to the worst quality of football forever.

...baaa.....ssskkeeet...bbbaaaaa....lllll ...sss...eee.aa..sss....ooo...nnnn...

Hurry!

Around the World

Two years ago, a close UK friend of mine, and (OF COURSE!) avid reader of Ten Fingers 6 Strings blather, had met and housed another Brit who was undertaking the audacious task of riding his bike around the world.

Yes, you read that right: riding his freaking bike around the world!

His name is Alastair Humphreys and when we met him, he had already been through Europe, down through Northern Africa to South Africa, to the Southern tip of South America, then up through Central American, Mexico, then the West Coast of the United States. When he reach San Francisco, he stayed with my friend and we took him around the town. It was quite a bit more lavish than most of the nights he spent by the side of the road in a tent.

Anyway, he was an absolutely delightful and tremendous person who, naturally, had some amazing tales to tell. It was strange thinking that someone who had gone all that way still had more than half of his trip left.

Well, my good friend emailed me this story in the UK Guardian today. Alastair finally made it home! Read the whole story to get a glimpse of what this guy has been through over the past 45,000 miles.

Kill al-Qaeda

Dave at Garfield Ridge tells about al-Qaeda's bombing in Jordan, but puts it into context with al-Qaeda's ontology:

Our enemy doesn't care who you are, what country you came from, what your position on the Iraq War is, or what God you pray to. They will kill you just the same, for no reason other than they feel like it.

But hey, aren't we supposed to empathize with these murderers? You know, try to understand where they're coming from?

Honestly, I'm long since tired of concerning myself where these bastards come from. All I care about is where we must send them.

Click over to Dave's site to see a fantastic illustration of just where Dave would like to send al-Qaeda. I'll give you a hint: it's much worse than the Paris suburbs.

In the West, it is fairly common for people, regardless of political bent, to somewhat recoil from thought of deliberately pursuing a people specifically to kill them. We've come a long way since the medieval times of stringing people up for religious beliefs, and quite contrary to guys like Michael Moore, Westerners (even Americans!) don't enjoy acts of violence all that much. This isn't an argument to say that acts of violence don't occur in the West (a discourse on human nature is way beyond the scope of this post), but I remember sitting in a class on the Civil War in college, and the discussion was heated after our prof quoted these words by General Sherman:

I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.

and

War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say give them all they want.

...and when General "Stonewall" Jackson uttered these words when a subordinate suggested that they let the routed Union troops flee:

Kill them all.

These quotes are heartfelt and utterly brutal. As mutual prosecutors of a war that would pit brother against brother, these men threw off the gloves and fought until the the other dropped. The Civil War would rival the greatest wars in history not necessary in numbers lost, but in the ruthlessness with which each side fought the other.

Most 21st Century people look at these as words and see them as a product of a less sophisticated, unnuanced, and more barbaric time. Of course these men responded in such ways, they say, they had yet to experiece Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. Their non-violent ways showed us the possibilities of fighting for the oppressed without the raising of arms.

While the world was clearly the better for aforementioned men and women of peace, it doesn't necessarily mean that it pointed to a new way to resolved conflict that always works. The question posed to my Civil War class, after they mulled the murderous words of two of the greatest Civil War Generals, was, "Would slavery have been put to death without the brutality of General Sherman?" No one could argue pursuasively in the affirmative.

Civilized Western society is what we are trying to preserve with our war on terror. I have no qualms in determining that the war should be prosecuted as brutually and horribly as possible. Our forefathers fought each other without mercy, and it is rather bizarre that we would restrain ourselves against a far more murderous and souless enemy that is restrained only by capability, not mercy. This is precisely why I do not have much sympathy when it comes to issues like torturing prisoners. I'm certainly not "pro-torture", as I'm sure many would label me, but I can't say that I find myself weeping for our "lost" souls when it does happen. War certainly is hell, and there is no way to fight it humanely. We've tried, only to be left with situations like Fallujah, where our "humanity" won out and we pulled out, only to have to lose more men to take it again.

So, I'll say it clear and say it loud. Al-Qaeda needs to be destroyed, and they have chosen to fight it out in Iraq. This is where their graveyard should be dug, and the more severely we deal with them now, the less we will have to deal with in the future. Unfortunately, I don't think that we as a people are ready for this kind of war. There is a substantial portion of the population that believes this war doesn't really exist, but in our own minds. Combine them with a the fact that there is also a growing and large number of people that believe this war needs to be fought, but thin there no reason for it to be "messy."

I don't think, in war, you can have your cake and eat it. I'm not worried about losing this war, I'm worried that we are going to see another massive attack on Western soil again before it is over. Without aggressively dealing with al-Qaeda, we are giving them time to hit us again. The longer they live, the likelihood of another September 11th or worse increases. When that happens, I'm sure there will be a lot less folks clammoring for a "humane" end to this fight.

Sadly, it is highly probable that it will take a lot of dead people on our side to convince them of this harsh fact.

Monster Mash

Hi everyone. Quiet night blog-wise, ugly night work wise. We are laying off about 15% of our workforce and even though my job is secure, it isn't fun watching the car wreck before your eyes.

Anyway, I'm not much in the mood to write tonight. I'll see everyone tomorrow.

In the meantime watch Mike Tyson singing Monster Mash with Bobby Brown...it is the funniest thing I have ever seen...I would pay some serious bones to watch someone follow Tyson around with a camera for a few days...

Tyson Link (Some of the ads on the site might not be safe for work, so watch yourself very carefully--also, don't run with pointy scissors [round ones ok]).

Wow, last night's post was a little cranky, huh?

I blame Canada.

Tuesday Night Meltdown

Being a libertarianish guy, tonight was not a good night for me. I can handle living in a world where things don't go my way, as often they don't, but tonight is the first night since I have lived here that I am seriously considering leaving San Francisco.

Here are the two propositions passed tonight that have enraged me:

Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters Tuesday.

With 98 percent of San Francisco precincts reporting, 58 percent of voters backed the proposed gun ban while 42 percent opposed it.

Measure H prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.

Although law enforcement, security guards and others who require weapons for work are exempt from the measure, current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April.

A coalition led by the National Rifle Association has said it plans to challenge the initiative in court on Wednesday if the measure passes, arguing that cities do not have the authority to regulate firearms under California law.

Only two other major U.S. cities — Washington and Chicago — have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.

The military recruitment initiative also won with 59 percent in favor and 41 percent against.

Measure I, dubbed "College Not Combat," opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.

Instead, Proposition I encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults.

Tonight, I lost my 2nd Ammendment right, and the voters of San Francisco came out in full force to spit on the men and women that are shedding their blood to die for them.

I don't own a gun, but after Katrina, I have seriously considered purchasing one after seeing what happened to a disaster area when order breaks down. However, this one bothers me more in principle, in that, typical of San Francisco, they don't behave like they respect the United States Constitution, so they try and pass laws to avert it. If they have a problem with our Constitution, then they should go and try to get enough support to go through the Constitutional process of Ammending the Constitution. That would be too difficult, and would never happen, so they are stuck with taking our Federal Rights away on the local level.

But, again, this doesn't bother me directly as much as the second measure. San Franciscians have been rallying for the past 4 years about "caring for the troops" so much, that they wanted to "bring them home." Instead, their hypocrisy knows no bounds as they seek to actively work against them. Having family memembers and friends of who have sacrificed and put their lives on the line for these people, they have in turn, shown their gratitude by, ironically, voting for a measure against them that can only be made possible and paid for by the blood of those that wear that uniform.

I'm gonna get some Alka-Seltzer...

Suggestions

I'm trying to think of some nicknames for this blog. So far candidates include:

• Digital Drivel
• Devoid Thoughts
• Talk So Much, Say So Little
• Anti-traffic
• Inane World
• Web Surfer's Kryptonite
• Unquotable
• Two Word Review: "Shit Sandwich"

The dirtier and more offensive the better. Outrage works too...

UPDATE: I did vote today. Thankfully for California, and everyone else, I will keep my ballot a secret. Do you think I should talk about everything on here?

But I will say this, I didn't vote for that damn sasquatch again...

Opposition to War at Home is Materializing on the Battlefield

Here is an interesting story in the British Sunday Times about the level of stress endured by British soldiers. Obviously, a battlezone is very stressful, but the reasons for the these increases, which apparently rivals the stress levels of soldiers in WWII, was really telling:

SENIOR army doctors have warned that troops in Iraq are suffering levels of battle stress not experienced since the second world war because of fears that if they shoot an insurgent, they will end up in court. The two senior Royal Army Medical Corps officers, one of whom is a psychologist, have recently returned from Basra, where they said they counselled young soldiers who feared a military police investigation as much as they did the insurgents.

...One corporal said that troops arriving in Basra were confronted by warnings from the Royal Military Police. “They make it clear that any and every incident will be investigated. It is also made clear that if you shoot someone, you will face an inquiry that could take up to a year.

“The faces of the young lads straight out of training drop as the fear of being investigated strikes home and many ask whose side the RMP are on.”

Although the levels of fighting in Iraq are nowhere near those of some of the bloodiest battles of the second world war, such as the battle of the bulge or Kohima, the much more complex situation that the British troops face is pushing up stress levels just as far.

The combination of knowing that death might come at any time from a roadside bomb and that shooting back at Iraqis who attack them might result in their being court-martialled is putting immense pressure on young soldiers.

The doctors described morale in some units as very low with soldiers cynically suggesting they needed a solicitor with them before they shot back at any Iraqi who attacked them.

Many frontline infantry soldiers were in survival mode and had the impression that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is not supporting them and nobody in the UK cares about what is happening in Iraq, the officers said.

This weekend senior MoD officials sought to counter the damage done to morale after the collapse of the court martial by revealing that John Reid, the defence secretary, had ordered an urgent review of whether the MoD is fulfilling its duty of care to soldiers facing legal action.

There are signs that it is already too late, with more than 5,370 infantry soldiers buying themselves out of the army in the past three years rather than be posted back to Iraq or Afghanistan.

This story is even more amazing given the fact that the area of operations that these British troops are responsible for, while not completely quiet, have still faced some of the least resistent of the entire war. Imagine the effectiveness of these troops if the British had been given control of Mosul or Najaf. The ability of these troops to do their job has been entirely affected by the political landscape at home.

The root of this problem, is the view that the bad guys in Iraq, according a large contingent of British society, and a smaller, but sizable number in the U.S., is us. Each incident of mistaken or intentional perfidity, regardless of their overall size and impact, is shot through a megaphone and demonstrated as proof that we are the ones who are the offenders. All the while, insurgents are beheading, murdering and killing entire families of Iraqis who have betrayed their loyalty (as if they even had it in the first place).

I'm not saying that acts of barbarity on our side should not go unpunished. Those responsible for Abu Ghraib and the deliberated killing of civilians should be locked away for a long time. But, the battle that occurred at the beginning of this war--whether we should approach this as a law enforcement matter or as a war--is still raging today. While columnists, politicos and civilians can rehash this debate ad infinitum within the consequence-free safety of their own borders, it is almost impossible to handle, and full of consequences in a war zone. Life and death situations that rise up, where an enemy totally relies upon the element of surprise, demand that a soldier can rely on his ability to act on instinct to defend himself and his men. But political forces have tied the soldier's hands behind his back, and before he can engage, he must weigh the alternatives of whether he is in the clear or not. Needless to say, time is not something that he has, and he knows it. Mentally, these men have been duct-taped and forced to walk into a gauntlet.

The insurgents know this and they completely rely upon it. They know that these war opponets back home, useful idiots as Vladimir Lenin used to call them, will restrain us from fully committing to enforcing the rule law, which has now been authorized by a democratically elected and constitutionally backed government.

The anti-war folks, not neccessarily the ones that opposed the initial invasion, but those that continue to actively oppose any sort of push towards victory in Iraq, must be utterly and completely devoid of conscience. I wish I could say I'm surprised.

Australia Averts a Major Terrorist Attack?

From the Daily Telegraph:

POLICE say they have foiled a large scale terrorist attack in Australia following the arrest of at least 17 people in raids in Sydney and Melbourne early today.

Nine people in Melbourne and eight in Sydney were arrested as hundreds of ASIO, Australian Federal Police and state police officers swooped on homes in the two cities, police said.

...The raids were the culmination of a 16-month operation and the suspects in Melbourne and Sydney were alleged to be working together, police said.

NSW Premier Morris Iemma said it was alleged the group in Sydney was stockpiling chemicals capable of making explosives and that they were believed to be planning a terrorist attack in Australia.

Substances believed to be chemicals had been seized in Sydney by officers wearing protective clothing, police said.

Those arrested were due to appear in court in Melbourne and Sydney today, on federal and state charges.

If this pans out, it looks like the Aussies dodged a big one.

More analysis tonight...

Riots in France Do Mean Something in the War On Terror

I wrote a couple of columns last week that put the riots in France into context with the Global Islamist movement. Understandably, the question of the "links" between the two have come into question. Ace begs the question today:

Is This Really A "Muslim Uprising" Or Just Some Good Old Fashioned Street Violence? There's some debate about this; to me, though, it does seem to look an awful lot like an uprising. If there's no Al Qaeda like ideology behind this, but more of an inchoate desire to hold terriotory Youths of Undetermined Ethnic Extraction can call their own, is that really any better?

I don't think it matters. Clearly, al Qaeda is the most dangerous and violent of the Islamic extremist groups, however there is so much rot and decay within the framework of most Islamic based societies that needs to be dealt with. The knee-jerk reaction towards violent confrontation is the primary reason that we went into Iraq. It was time for force a confrontation in the heart of Islamic society to either join the 21st Century that allows others to live in peace under their own belief systems, or to destroy the continuing behavior that supports violent methods for either airing their grievances or furthering of ideology.

The operational, or even ideological, links to al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgency and the Muslims in France is irrelevant. The response by the West to actively resist, confront and suppress their violence, however, is. The West has not yet figured out that we are being watched. Each time we demonstrate weakness, whether it is calling for a "spirit of dialog and respect" while our cities are burning, or pulling out of a military engagement short of strategic goals, we embolden their most violent elements.

I think the broader strategic picture is much more important here. Ace continues this thought in a better way than I could:

Diplomacy has its virtues, of course, but its efficacy has always b(een) limited by its major flaw: The word "No." You can call for all the dialogue and respect you like, but if your would-be interlocutor simply says "No," that's it for diplomacy.

John Kerry could never seem to understand that with regard to Iraq or our "historic allies."

I'll take it a step further--the West is going to have to teach Islamic societies to understand the word "No." We can't put them in "timeout" or send them off to their rooms with no desert. They have initiated a confrontation with violence, and if we in turn, cower and allow them to dictate to us their terms, we have lost the argument and the war. They are learning slowly in Iraq and Afghanistan that violence is going to be met with swift justice, but this war is going to require us to be uncompromising to Islamic violence (regardless of its "root cause") wherever it springs up.

Bummed

I'm up early this morning to catch the Hoosiers on the radio. In my preparation for listening to the game, I came across one of the worst pieces of news I have heard in Hoosier sports in a long time:

Forty minutes of pound-the-ball-inside, up-tempo, crowd-pleasing Indiana University basketball took on a somber tone late Friday night when it was learned that sophomore forward D.J. White might miss a minimum of six weeks with a stress fracture in his left foot. White scored 13 points in 11 first-half minutes as the Hoosiers easily defeated St. Joseph's (Ind.) 93-65 in the exhibition opener at Assembly Hall. But early in the first half, White fell awkwardly in the lane and began limping. He eventually came off the floor, but after sitting for a few minutes he insisted he was OK to go back in. He played another few minutes, scored a couple of baskets on turnaround jumpers, then came out.

X-rays were taken at halftime. After the game, the official comment from IU was that White "had a foot injury and would be out indefinitely.'' But two sources close to the IU program confirmed the stress fracture, which could sideline White for 6-8 weeks.

This is a crucial year for Indiana basketball, and probably the most exciting team we've had since I arrived on campus in '95. DJ White was Big 10 Freshman of the year last year and one of the strengths to a team that looked to overmatch with height and speed most of it's opponents this year. Him and transfer Marco Killingsworth could both demand double teams.

Granted it is "only" 6-8 weeks, but we play those bastards from Duke early this year, so hopefully some of the talented freshmen step up.

Damn, damn, damn, damn...

UPDATE: Indiana is getting absolutely mauled by Minnesota. They've given up four touchdowns in the 3rd quarter. Another day, another game where Indiana can't even cover the point spread.

Is it basketball........ah the hell with it...

The Fight is Here

The Colossus provides some context and longer-term thinking to the riots that we are seeing in Paris:

Certainly Western societies have encouraged radicalism where they have not resisted it. But Islamic countries on their own are not open and tolerant societies. Walk down the street in Riyadh as a woman wearing a modest sundress and cross on a chain around your neck, and you'll be hauled in front of a religious court in seconds flat. The problem is not either/or -- we're great, and they're screwed up (or, "they're ok and we're screwed up"). It's both/and -- we're sick, and they're screwed up. I see the sickness of the West every day when I read the appeasement and defeatism emanating from the left-hand side of the blogosphere, or read articles like Dalrymple's about the sad state of Paris. But the bigger problem is still the Middle East itself. While rioters can burn Paris tenements and unemployed Muslim men are ripe for carrying a bomb onto a tube, these are, at some level, small problems. Tehran having an atom bomb and a means of delivery that can hit Jerusalem is a direct, immediate and large-scale problem. Certianly the defeatism, apathy, and decadence of the West must be fixed. But we can live with that provided there aren't atom bombs raining down. We must ask ourselves -- do we have the courage to solve that problem? If we don't, then reform of the West probably won't save us.

If one thing is constant in history it is that nothing is constant. The purpose of my post is not to enter into a debate about the specific nature of man, but ask you to look back on the thousands of years of documented human history and see man with a mixed past: he is very noble--capable of demonstrating great character through great courage, forgiveness, and generosity, while also creativeness, innovation, intellegence and resourcefulness. But man also has another dark side, not in a Manichean dualistic sense, but as a creature who although capable of such nobility, has also shown immeasurable cruelty and a hunger for power and control that societies and cultures throughout the ages have tried to either solve or breed.

Now that I've adequately painted with as broad a brush as possible, let's talk about terrorism. Some societies and cultures have been overrun by those that breed and feast on the "dark-side" man--they seek power and subjugation over free people, and usually employ violent suppression along with heavy doses of propaganda to maintain control. The list is long and shameful, but Stalin, Tojo, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein have done their best to stand out from the rest. Sadly, only one of these monsters was ever chased down like the dog he was, and another met a dire fate, but he was able to pull his own trigger. Being a mass murder is good business.

In today's world, right smack dab in the middle of the world where history began, there is a loosely connected society where a violent and severely oppressive ideology dominates. And the scary part of this maniacal ideology is not just it's penchant for violence, but also the cleverness with which that have been been able to accurately identify and tenaciously attack the West's soft underbelly.

The West, in general, embodies a rival ideology to the Islamists. The West stood up to Hitler, Stalin and Tojo and the world is better off without their legacies continuing. The West, regardless of it's faults and inevitable mishaps, is to varying degrees mostly free, and has fought hard to protect it.

But the West has been tearing at itself from within for years. In Europe, Marxism, a (E)utopian ideal, sought the justice and equality so desired by a humane people, but in practice only brought oppression, pain, and decay. Still clinging to varying forms of this ideology, some Westerners routinely point to each injustice and scheme as proof positive that things need to reform. Not able to take the failed examples of communism to heart (e.g. "They just didn't execute it properly"), they feed their delusions and desire another crack at "progessing" society forward to a "more just" future.

The Islamists have now seized on this. Often, the way to reform, is to tear down. As the Left and some ultra nationalists on the far right seek to tear down Western Society for its own gains, the Islamists have inserted themselves into the equation to help make sure that when the West is torn down, it stays down.

The Islamists have taken advantage of the widespread multiculturalism that seeks not to "judge" them. They have been able to live off extensive welfare systems, and while not exactly getting rich, they have plenty of food on the table and a lot of time to sit around, seethe and plot their move to overthrow their more well-off neighbors. Men like Osama Bin Laden believed that the West was soft and that Allah would deliver this paper tiger to them.

Al-Qaeda is the most organized and blood-thirsty of the Islamists. They were also intellegent, and clearly not lacking in boldness. Even though al-Qaeda was correctly identifying a weakness in Western society, the results of their strategy didn't work to their advantage. The attacks of September 11th, while bold and intelligently planned, were a disaster of epic proportions. The United States, although it has it's own elements of self-loathing, wasn't quite a decadent as they anticipated. The United States counter-attacked, removed al-Qaeda's grip from Afghanistan, and is now being decimated after applying their full-court press in Iraq. Many problems still exist for the United States in Iraq, mostly with regards to its self-loathing population, but it looks more grim for al-Qaeda than the United States at this point.

But Europe is a different story. The Islamists have turned and organized in Europe, hoping that they can get the Europeans to cave in on themselves. The bombings in Spain were enough to get them to pull troops out of Iraq. The British responded with more resolve in the aftermath of the London bombings, but has still shown signs of cracking, when a few weeks after, a debate raged over a shoot to kill policy that unfortunately ended in the misunderstanding and death of a young Brazilian.

Now France. Paris burns, and guys like Sarkozy have clearly identified the problem, but the Islamists have hit them exactly where they are weak. If the French are to return fire and put down the rioting, they will be forced to contradict their earlier position that, if left alone, these people will desire to live in peace. In the view of the Left, their violence is a result of having been disenfranchised, and the way to get them to stop isn't through a violent confrontation, but through urging calm and peace.

The French government has been utterly paralzyed by this confrontation. My argument sides with guys like Sarkozy. He sees the situation not as a spontaneous riot birthed out of disenfranchisement, but of a well-organized and intentional strike right to the heart of French society. The Islamists have to be encouraged that it only took a few days of burning things and shooting at police to watch the Left handcuff and restrain any kind of effective response to put this down.

A broader picture is emerging: the West is now in for a fight whether it wants it or not. Violence is going to be the inevitable clash between yet another civilization that has embraced and fed oppression and murder, and a society that is imperfectly, but freely trying to live in the world. At this point, the West can stand up and fight for itself, or it can continue it's paralysis and take some more hits on the chin.

Right now we are seeing the Islamists rioting, bombing subways and flying planes into buildings. These have all been horrific occurances, but they are nothing compared to what is in store if we stand here paralyzed. Iran is trying to get nukes, and we keep capturing al-Qaeda volunteers who are trying to develop chemical and biological weapons. As time progresses, the stakes are only going to get higher.

How many more shots are we willing to absorb before we decided to take the gloves off and fight these guys?

Another Day in Academia

Penraker wins the headline of the week award with this:

Quick - Hide the Bibles - Here comes the Dean! Pretend We Were Practicing the Vagina Monologues

Click through to read a story about another academic institution behaving like a bunch of nincompoops.

Mountaineering Post

Go read Kyle's post that debates Mountaineering Style. I have a rather long post in the works that addresses this issue, and it is one that Kyle and I have been talking about for quite sometime, but specifically it is over the Everest expeditions that now require small scale military logistics. Is this type of climbing necessary and when has the "bad form" line been crossed?

Anyway, I've been lagging on this because I want to put a solid effort behind it and I've been rather busy at work. It looks like the "L" word is in our future, so I'm going to be putting some serious effort into saving as many jobs as I can.

In the meantime, hang tight and love each other passionately.

Ok, maybe a high five will be sufficient.

Race Baiting

Notre Dame endured a tremendous amount of scrutiny for the firing of coach Ty Willingham last year. Willingham, a distinguished black coach who had a promising first year for Notre Dame (10-3 record, National Coach of the Year), then followed with two very subpar seasons, especially for a school that through its tradition attracts some of the best players in the country. Although he had a successful first year, Notre Dame felt as if Willingham wasn't their guy, and let him go. Immediate cries of racism ensued.

Notre Dame hadn't sat on top of the world for quite some time. After the Lou Holtz era, Bob Davies brought the Fighting Irish into Notre Dame's "Era of Malaise." Something needed to be done, and done quickly. Davies was fired and the bumpy road continued with the embarrassing hiring and firing of George O'Leary for padding his resume (he was a dubious hire anyway).

This is the background surrounding this race-baiting column by Jason Whitlock. This week, Willingham's successor, Charlie Weis signed a contract extension for 10-years between $30 and $40 million. According to Whitlock, Charlie Weis was offered this extension not because of his ability to coach football, but because he is white:

I believe it was the great Negro philosopher Don King who best summarized Charlie Weis' Notre Dame contract extension: "Only in America."

Because only in the land of apple pie, baseball and hypocrisy would a major sports organization have the audacity to give a white football coach a record contract for winning five of his first seven games just a few months after prematurely firing a black coach who won his first eight.

You have to be impressed with Notre Dame's arrogance.

First, it is really hard to take a column seriously that starts out, without the slightest hint of facetiousness, calling Don King the "great Negro philosopher." Bit of a non-sequitur, but an interesting anecdote nonetheless.

He continues on by saying that Charlie Weis' relative performance to Ty Willingham, in their respective first years, was much less impressive due to the poor record of the teams that Weis has beaten this year. Whitlock then deduces that because Willingham didn't receive a contract extension at the end of his outstanding year, Notre Dame applied different, and more difficult, standards to him than to Charlie Weis.

Jason doesn't go much further in comparing their first years as the headcoach of Notre Dame. Too bad, since the story plays out a little differently when put into context beyond just his first year at Notre Dame. Here is was Willingham's record as a head coach:

1995 Stanford (Liberty Bowl) 7-4-1
1996 Stanford (Sun Bowl) 7-5
1997 Stanford 5-6
1998 Stanford 3-8
1999 Stanford (Rose Bowl) 8-4
2000 Stanford 5-6
2001 Stanford (Seattle Bowl) 9-3
2002 Notre Dame (Gator Bowl) 10-3
2003 Notre Dame 5-7
2004 Notre Dame (Insight Bowl)6-5

Willingham has clearly tasted success in his life, but his record has been FAR from consistent. I think that the Notre Dame administration took a big risk in hiring Ty. Wedged between a Rose Bowl appearance in 1999 (which Stanford lost), were two seasons where he went a combined 8-14. In ten years, only twice did he follow up a winning season with another. Additionally, in the successful season Whitlock keeps referring to, he lost 28-6 to NC State in the Gator Bowl.

Weis's career is hard to compare since he never coached in the college ranks. However, Weis has 3 NFL Superbowl rings in 4 appearances as an assistant (he would of had a fourth had he turned down the Notre Dame job stuck around last year). Objectively, the man has had success at the highest level. Subjectively, does this necessarily translate to long-term success for the Notre Dame football team? Notre Dame, much to my lament as a Hoosier, has one of the richest traditions college football, and they were desperate for a return to the top. They rolled the dice again, and bet on a guy who filled his fingers with Superbowl rings, instead of a moderately successful college coach who had never displayed any consistency.

The 10 year contract was rather insane, in my opinion. However, that doesn't make Notre Dame racist. If it doesn't play out, it just makes them dumb. When guys like Whitlock play the race card, they aren't just baiting a bunch of white guys in suits (or in Notre Dame's case, clerical collars); they are specifically doing Ty Willingham and all black coaches a disservice. Administrations are going to be more reluctant to hire black coaches, knowing that they could be labeled as racists for making a coaching change, especially at top schools where there is little-to-no toleration for losing. Who wants Jessie Jackson putting you in the crosshairs of his extortion ring?

Jason, how about a little turnabout from your great Negro philosopher:

"You go for the quality of the performance, not the longevity of it."

The same could be said for the quality of sports columns too.