The Superbowl is Fun

For those of you in the blog world, do you remember "Fisking?" For those of you unfamiliar, here is the definition:

A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment.

I'd never really been a big fan of "Fisking." Sometimes people could be pretty good with it (Stephen Green has been a master at it), but most times I'd read someone who either wanted to nitpick, write copious amounts of hyperbole without thought or they simply wanted to write "You suck balls" after each paragraph somone wrote. I've never delivered a Fisking on this site, but just like smoking crack, there's a first time for everything. Plus, I like hyperbole...

...wait, you tellin' me you've never tried crack?

Okaaaaay...

Skip Bayless is one of those sports writers who is a lot like a Michael Moore film--it should be avoided and best left alone, but should you choose to engage your curiousity and pay attention to the fool, you are going to be left with nothing but an urge to rip your face off with your own shoe. I can't resist Fisking this guy because, even though I'm not getting calls to be Brad Pitt's stunt double, I rather like my face and if I have to either rip my face off or do something that was chic back in 2002, I'll go with an outdated blogging tactic.

On the eve of the Superbowl, Debbie Downer Skip Bayless wants to let us know why the Superbowl really sucks and how we'd better off shooting each other in the face than watching the game.

I'm writing this as I travel to my 31st consecutive Super Bowl.

This has always been my second favorite sports event -- The Masters wins by a single blade of Augusta National grass. But this year, the Super Bowl is beginning to feel like the Indy 500 without Danica.

Super Bowl XL is anything but Extra Large. For most fans who aren't Seahawks or Steelers fans, this matchup seems like it should be returned and exchanged.

If you love your Seahawks or your Steelers, please quit reading now. This isn't for you. This is for everyone else out there who is trying -- and trying -- to get excited about the NFL's showcase game. I sense less buzz about this Super Bowl than any I've attended. If any Roman-numeral game has ever deserved only one week of buildup, it was this one.

Super Bowl life ends at 40?

While Seahawks fans are sleepless in Seattle, media members are sleepy in Detroit. Somehow, the Seahawks and Steelers in Detroit seems like a consolation game. After three sensational weekends of playoffs, this is an anticlimax. Now we're paying the price for all those upsets.

How can these teams ever generate enough star power to live up to the telecast's Oscar-worthy commercials?

No Peyton or Brady or Vick or buzz.

No rivalry or bad blood or controversy or buzz.

Only zzz.

I understand that sex sells. Only the most partisan of believers will be convinced that this Superbowl has the lure of two Supermodels mudwrestling while wearing dental floss. But sexy is mutually exclusive of a good football game.

You like Michael Vick? Well, I'd rather have a quarterback who is capable of throwing for more than 130-yards a game.

Peyton? Sure, nothing like the drama of watching the perennial choker play in the biggest game of the year.

Brady? The guy has been money, but not being a Pats fan, I don't mind the change of scenery after three years.

The problem here is that, for the first time, the Super Bowl features two underdogs, two Cinderellas, two teams that came from nowhere on destiny-kissed rolls. One underdog can make for a can't-put-it-down script -- see some kid named Brady vs. Kurt Warner's "unstoppable" St. Louis Rams four years ago. But though this year's point spread is Pittsburgh by 4½, this feels like a game without a favorite.

The Steelers, the first sixth seed to make it to the Super Bowl, barely made the playoffs thanks to a fairly easy closing schedule. They beat Kyle Orton's Bears in a snowstorm in Pittsburgh, then took care of Minnesota, Cleveland and Detroit.

But would they have won their first playoff game, in Cincinnati, if Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer hadn't been hurt on his second play? Doubtful. Would they have finished off the season's most shocking upset, in Indianapolis, if Colts cornerback Nick Harper hadn't weaved back into a sprawling ankle tackle by Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger? No. Would the Steelers have been able to win in Foxborough if the Broncos hadn't upset the Patriots the week before in Denver? Highly doubtful. Would the Steelers have won in Denver if an early poor pass by Roethlisberger had been picked off in the flat by Champ Bailey and returned for a stadium-rocking touchdown? Probably not.

And now the AFC's sixth seed is favored over the NFC's top seed? This feels like a moderately interesting, Week 9 nonconference game.

Would the Seahawks have risen from 2-2 to home-field playoff advantage if Terrell Owens hadn't torn apart the Eagles? If Michael Vick hadn't regressed? If the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys hadn't been forced to do battle twice in the East and the Panthers, Bucs and Falcons hadn't beaten each other up in the South?

Things just kept breaking right for the Seahawks. Without bye weeks, the Redskins and Panthers were banged up before playoff games in Seattle -- where the Seahawks' 12th Man gives them the NFL's loudest and strongest home-field advantage.

Skip just provided us with more conditional statements in the preceding excerpt than javascripts running on ESPN.com. If his point is, "these teams were lucky" the answer is, "of course."

Last time I checked, luck, or in sports we call them "breaks," are a large part of the game. The dynastic 49ers or Cowboys teams of the past were incredibly talented, but they also closed out their incredible regular seasons by beating teams in the playoffs who were looking to take advantage of an off day.

Also, if you have watched the NFC this year, you would have witnessed pure mediocrity. There wasn't a single team that anyone could point to as one that could run away with a clear line to the Superbowl. Crap football abounded and the Seahawks managed to play just a little bit better than everyone else. Welcome to the salary-cap era...

...As much as I respect the Rooney family, I couldn't help chuckling the other day when Steelers owner Dan Rooney compared this team to the Terry Bradshaw team that won its first of four Super Bowls. Come on. That team had nine future Hall of Famers -- Bradshaw at that point being the least likely candidate.

Best case, this Steelers team has three candidates -- Bettis, Roethlisberger and Troy Polamalu.

Roethlisberger has the best chance of becoming this game's breakout Madison Avenue star. But as good as he is in his second season, it's laughable to hear angle-starved commentators already reaching to compare him with a young Marino or Elway. Calm down. Roethlisberger doesn't have Marino's trigger or Elway's mobility or either one's velocity. First let's see if Big Ben can beat the Seahawks.

I couldn't help chuckling when you tried to re-enforce your mediocrity argument by denigrating Roethlisberger in comparison to those making proper comparisons to the abilities of Dan Marino and John Elway. Dan Marino: zero Superbowl rings. John Elway: destroyed in his first three. He had to wait until the Montana, Aikman, Simms, retired before making his way into the win column. Elway gets my vote for perserverance, not for the greatness of Montana or Aikman who never lost.

Roethlisberger is playing in the Superbowl in just his 2nd year. If he walks away with a win, he'll have one more than Marino.

(Ancilary to the point, Eli Manning quarterbacks my favorite team and to this day I regret the fact the Giants took him over Big Ben in the draft. Thinking of the blown opportunity of having Ben passing to Burress, Shockey and Toomer with Tiki in the backfield creates a sorrow in me that would make Shakespear spill his guys. I have to move on now, I'm choking on some, uh, dust...)

...Whoops, another puncture in our Super Bowl balloon. The black-jerseyed, mud-and-blood Steelers often abandoned their running game early in their playoff road wins and opened up the offense and even resorted to trick plays. Though they're the Super Bowl home team, they've chosen to wear their white road jerseys. Now we don't even have a vaunted bully.

We have two very likable teams and coaches. We have Steelers coach Bill Cowher doing what a desperate, couldn't-win-the-big-one Mack Brown did at Texas -- backing off, loosening up, letting his young quarterback throw the ball. We have Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren, slipping off an early-season hot seat and now admitting he was beginning to doubt his ability.

...You can't wait for Sunday, can you.

Actually Skip, I can't. Regardless of what, I am a football fan and I love Superbowl Sunday, because regardless of how sexy the teams are that are playing in the game, I have an excuse to sit in a room with 40 other people who are interested share my interest in drinking too much, eating too much, laughing too much, and rolling each other in Crisco (San Francisoc tradition) while watching oversized human beings with supernatural athletic ability run full speed at each other in the effort to make the other guy vaporize (or just fall to the ground) under the pretension of moving a "ball" across a white line.

So if you don't mind, I am going to have a great Superbowl Sunday. Since you've attended 31 consecutive Superbowls, why don't you hand your tickets to someone who would actually enjoy themselves, thus freeing yourself to sit in front of a John Elway poster and a bottle of Vaseline in confines of your own home.

------------------

This hyperbolic sports post was brought to you in part by TF6S public and corporate employer who is making him sit through sexual harrassment "training" instead of doing his job today. I'm glad they asked us to bring our laptops.

Typically Long-Winded Diatribe on the State of Indiana Basketball

The excitement that flowed through my veins everytime I thought about Indiana basketball leading up to college hoops season produced enough endorphines to make a $400-a-day herion habit look like nothing but a bad investment. I was fortunate enough last year to get a look at Marco Killingsworth in practice and, not only was he the best player on the floor (but only slightly more talented than DJ White), he was the kind of guy that was demonstrating a lot of leadership and toughness that was sorely lacking with IU's last two teams.

So, the year starts and DJ White breaks his foot. He would be out for a couple of weeks and would be ready for the BIG Ten season. Indiana rolled through its non-conference schedule by essentially being outlasted by Duke at home by one JJ Reddick shot and a couple of free-throws down the stretch. The pummeled Kentucky, who regardless of talent this year, has always been a psychological wall for Indiana.

Hope were high, then DJ White, who was back for three games, breaks his foot again. Out for the season. However, while this wasn't a good thing, this team played Duke, without DJ White, tougher for 40-minutes than any team has yet (Georgetown got out to an early big lead, only to barely hang on at the end). I was convinced this team would be in spectacular shape for the Big Ten season and into March.

Well, Indiana over the last two games has demonstrated that there is something sorely missing. This team, who had convinced me that they had the talent and the desire to beat anyone who walked onto the floor with them, is coming apart at the seams. They inimically walked into Iowa last week to get beat by a team that had lost by 30-points to Michigan State the previous game. But if that was bad enough, no one could have foresaw Indiana following up this trough-like effort by going up to Minnesota (previously 0-6 in the Big Ten) and playing like a Division III school. They managed to shoot 30% for the game (23% 3pt fg), turned the ball over almost every other time down the floor, and were beaten to every loose ball. Again, this wasn't against Illinois and Dee Brown, it was a game against a team that was still staring at a goose-egg in Big Ten play.

More times than not, I like to listen to the game on the radio. Indiana has a gem of an announcer in Don Fischer, and I find that he is much more interesting and capable than most of the play-by-play guys on TV. After the Minnesota game, him and color-commentator, Todd Leary, were at a complete loss in trying to explain why this team is falling apart. It is very apparent what is wrong, no rebounding, too many turnovers, not enough effort, but no one expected this team to play this way, so why has it fallen apart? Well, if you are at a loss in explaining why, a lot of times is because there is a white elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge is there.

Before I lay-out what I think the problem is, let me lay-down where I have stood on the coaching drama in Bloomington. Bob Knight gave Indiana 28-years of amazing coaching, but I can be counted on as one of the many who was ready to see him leave in 2000. I personally wish that Bob could have "retired" so we could have sent him off the way he deserved, but in his typical fashion, couldn't stand not having the last word and, well, you know the rest.

I really love Mike Davis personally. He is a tremendous man and has been responsible for recruiting a lot of talent that would never have seen the arches in Bloomington during Bob Knights era soley based on what they think of Mike as a person. I actually enjoy watching a more athletic team who runs a more spread out offense than the old motion offense that can get you 20-wins, but no farther in today's game that relies on athleticism. I supported giving Davis a contract after he took Indiana to the finals in his second year, and supported them keeping him on this year in playing with a team as talented as any in the country. I had a hard time swallowing man-child, Greg Oden making his way over to Ohio State though, and most of that had to do with the uncertainty surrounding Davis's future. But I still thought it was the right thing to do.

Well Mike, if you've lost me, you're probably done. I've been rooting for you this whole time, and I'm now slowly convinced that you aren't going to cut it coaching Indiana's basketball team. There are a lot of factors that aren't your fault, but let me explain why I think there are problems that directly point to you as a coach.

IU played very well early. It was a team that unquestionably could play with anyone. IU was not only respected for it's talent, but mostly for it's depth of talent. You specifically have repeated that seven or eight guys on this team are capable of dropping 20 on any given night. There was some young talent on the bench that looked a little green, but they players like this are developed over time to play at a competitive level the Big Ten demands.

Well, instead of getting seven or eight guys who are capable of dropping twenty on any given night, there are a bunch of guys standing around looking at each other as the castle they've built is inexplicably crumbling around them. AJ Ratliff has managed to score 5 points total since dropping 21 in one half against Kentucky, and Marco Killingsworth, who used to scare the living crap out of opposing teams, looks like a deer in the headlights against the double-team in the post. Robert Vaden, who I think is one of most complete players in the game, throws the ball away far too much for a kid with his ability and acumen. The point guard play doesn't even exist. Our guards come up the floor without even a thought in their mind related to penetrating. I understand it is necessary to give Marco the ball, but the double-teams are going to keep coming unless you have some guards that penetrate into the paint to move your post defenders out of position.

Lastly, I must confess, I love this team. I think the character of the kids on the floor have rivaled any team Indiana has assembled. This team isn't plagued by a selfish Alan Iverson type like Bracey Wright anymore. With so much desire to see these kids succeed, I am having a hard time watching this team fall apart.

Coach Davis, this comes back to you. If you are unable to coach and teach kids with this quality of talent and personal character the adjustments that are inevitably required during conference play, then you can't coach anyone who will ever play at Indiana.

I'm not hopping onto the "fire Davis" bandwagon yet, as there is a lot of basketball left to play, but you're losing me. And if you can't get this ship turned around quickly to salvage a solid season, I'm willing to suffer through a few more tough seasons in mediocrity as we find another coach who can bring us back to where we need to be.

Coach? The ball's in your court.

Cindy Wants to Show Hugo Her Panties

Cindy Sheehan, professional non-productive member of society who, although non-productive, is excerting some effort by lying on her back in the effort to whore her way back into the national limelight:

Cindy Sheehan, the peace activist who set up camp near President Bush's Texas ranch last summer, said Saturday she is considering running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) to protest what she called the California lawmaker's support for the war in Iraq.

"She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won't call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops," Sheehan told The Associated Press in an interview while attending the World Social Forum in Venezuela along with thousands of other anti-war and anti-globalization activists.

...Sheehan accused Feinstein of being out of touch with Californians on the issue.

The Senate idea is beyond laughable, but I was curious as to what on earth a quiet, everyday "mom" is doing in Venezuela.

(Click Google)
(Type) World Social Forum in Venezuela
(Wait .30 seconds for results)
(Results Delivered)
(Click First Entry)

Here is the first story listed on the World Social Forum in Venezuela:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was warmly received at the 2005 edition of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where he held several meetings with local leaders, intellectuals and activists, and gave the closing speech at the Gigantinho Stadium. Chavez generated great interest among Forum participants, many of whom see Chavez and his project of political transformations being implemented in Venezuela, as an inspiration in the struggles for a more better world.

Cindy, you should be giggling in your panties, as Chavez has some other friends in this "struggle" that he could introduce you to:

What do you know, Jimmy standing to the left of Chavez...

So, Cindy, there is plenty of crazy to go around. Unfortunately, Chavez is more than just a hyperbolic figurehead whoring for attention. He is an actual head of state who is actively promoting the oppression of people thgroughout the world. He has a lot of friends that share his vision, and I'm sure he'd like to tickle your neck with the same sweet talk that he's given his friends above.

UPDATE: Holy crap!!! I didn't even see this!!!

Going up to Napa

Sparse posting is usually the norm on the weekends here. Today is no exception. I am going up to Napa to, um, drink some Pepsi.

Hopefully you are all behaving yourselves. If you aren't, don't hurt yourself.

To quote the immortal prescient Tupac Shakur: "Positions on tha floor, It's like erotic, Ironic, Cause I'm somewhat psychotic, I'm hitten' switches on bi**hes" "Keep it real."

Terrorists Busted in Columbia

Al-Qaeda and Hamas have been busted doing naughty things in Colombia:

Colombia has dismantled a false passport ring with links to al-Qaida and Hamas militants, the acting attorney general said Thursday after authorities led dozens of simultaneous raids across five cities.

The gang allegedly supplied an unknown number of citizens from Pakistan, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and other countries with false passports and Colombian nationality without them ever stepping foot in the country, the attorney general's office said in a written statement.

The counterfeited passports were then used to facilitate their entry into the United States and Europe.

Nineteen people were arrested in Thursday's raids, carried out in collaboration with U.S. authorities, the attorney general's office said. Officials at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota were not immediately available for contact.

An undisclosed number of those arrested are wanted for working with al-Qaida, the international terrorist organization headed by Osama Bin Laden, and the militant Palestinian group Hamas, said acting Attorney General Jorge Armando Otalora.

Yes, the second party in this soiree is now the majority ruling party of Palestine. And they have direct ties to al-Qaeda. Big surprise.

What a contrast in terrorist organizations though. One has been dutifully elected by its constituents to continue killing the filthy Jews with the blessings of the UK Guardian and Juan Cole, while the other seems to keep finding itself on the business end of Preditor missiles and raging Iraqis who've decided they're tired of them killing their women, children and policemen.

Analysis: If you are buying terrorist stock, short al-Qaeda, go long on Hamas--but not too long.

Actually, the really not nice part of this is the fact that we are now picking up on terrorists cells in South America. So, does anyone want to continue discussion on our borders now?

Tech Stuff

Is anyone getting a user name and password prompt when they load my site?

More on the Palestinian Elections

There's an interesting discussion I've jumped into over the results and consequences of the new Hamas majority over at Stackable Bards.

Stop in and say something smart.

TENFINGERS6STRINGS INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE suggests the future geographic physical location of the Hamas governed Palestinian State.

Taking the Initiative in Afghanistan?

This has been a bit low under the radar, but al-Qaeda is trying to rebound in Afghanistan. They are licking their chops after a lengthy and solid licking in Iraq, and now their senior leadership has been threatened with a few close calls.

Even though they have independent cells that operate with relative autonomy in comparison to a modern army, Al-Qaeda still requires physical and political strongholds in order to secure and strengthen their operations in a particular region. In Iraq they were able to wreck havoc for a quite some time, by holing up unmolested in Sunni areas. They took advantage of U.S. reluctance to "disturb the peace," but that didn't last. After a slow start, U.S. forces started to destroy their sanctuaries one by one, and replaced them with newly training Iraqi security forces. Not only were they able to capture and kill as many as possible, they held physical ground and the local populations turned against them. Al-Qaeda can only find safety in Syria now.

After being ejected from Afghanistan, al-Qaeda has found a relative stronghold in Western Pakistan. Intelligence has been showing that they are looking to counter-attack in Afghanistan this spring and I think our military has learned their messy lesson in Iraq. Just like with Iraq on the Euphrates, we need to find the potential rat-lines feeding into Afghanistan. Since al-Qaeda has yet to establish these routes in anywhere near their capacity of the early days of the Iraqi insurgency, we can take the the initiative now. In Iraq, we were training upwards to 200,000 new troops who could stand and hold ground along these areas, while in Afghanistan, the army is only about 35,000.

But, we have a much stronger international peacekeeping force there. The only problem is, convincing some of the leaders in these countries to go into areas that are extremely dangerous.

Well, Britian is stepping forward:

More than 3,300 British troops are to be sent to patrol and rebuild a lawless province of southern Afghanistan, the Defence Secretary announced today. A force of 850 servicepeople drawn from 39 Regiment Royal Engineers, and 42 Commando Royal Marines will be sent out first to Helmand province to build a camp for the main deployment of 3,300, which should be completed by July, John Reid said in a Commons statement.

The main body of soldiers will provide security and lead reconstruction work in the area, from their base at Lashkar Gar, the capital of Helmand. The force will include elements of the Headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade, and an airborne infantry battlegroup supported by Apache attack helicopters.

Lynx and Chinook helicopters would also be deployed in the mountainous region, where roads are scarce, along with four additional Hercules transport aircraft and armoured vehicles in a bid to "maximise our chances and minimise the dangers".

It will be Nato's first foray into the dangerous south of the country. Until now, the alliance has operated in the north and west, but the more volatile south has been patrolled by the United States outside Nato - with mixed results.

I made a chess analogy to the war here a while ago, so I'll just expand. In chess, you want to establish control over the center of the board. With control of the center, you open up more options to continue into your end-game.

So far, we have gotten to the point where we have established control of the center by displaying military superiority through Afghanistan and Iraq. Controlling the center doesn't win the match, but you are in much better position than your opponent is in to win the match. If we want to keep control of the center, the rat-lines must be permanently severed.

"The Girls of Riyadh"

Apparently, there is a new coffee table book by a female author in Saudi Arabia:

Gay teen-agers, predatory lesbians, women drinking alcohol at weddings, husbands with unsavory sexual demands.

With characters like that, "The Girls of Riyadh" is not your run-of-the-mill depiction of life in Muslim Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most restricted and conservative societies.

Though technically banned here, Rajaa al-Sanie's frank and sometimes shocking insight into the closed world of Saudi women is making waves four months after its publication in Beirut.

Local press commentators have asked the young Saudi to disown the book for besmirching women in the conservative kingdom and interviewers on Saudi-owned satellite channels have accused her of portraying its men as boorish bores.

But many young people using popular Internet chat rooms have praised Sanie's debut novel for its honesty. Prominent writers have lauded the work as part of a new trend which, through focusing on the psychology of the individual, suggests that human needs come above the demands of society and religion.

...In one passage, one of the four girls returns from Los Angeles to find that "love in her country is treated like an out-of-place joke that you can have fun with for a while, before it's removed from circulation by higher authorities."

One girl allows herself to get close to a Shi'ite, despite urban myths that say members of this minority sect spit on food before offering it to Sunni Muslims.

During a meeting in a cafe, the two are hauled off by the notorious Saudi moral police. "Poor Ali, he was a nice guy, to be honest. If only he hadn't been Shi'ite, she could have loved him," comments the novel's narrator.

In an early scene, women drink at a society wedding "since it deserved a bottle of Dom Perignon." In another chapter, an effeminate teen-ager is beaten by a father ashamed of his homosexuality.

And when one of the main characters closes her eyes and prepares herself for what is meant to be her first night of wedded bliss, she is shocked to find her husband "doing what she never imagined." She hits him, and the marriage is over.

The text is peppered with references to popular culture, including a song by a Saudi singer which gives the novel its title, as well as verses from the Koran, in what Sanie says is a reflection of the diverse influences on young people.

"She's your Queen-to-be.
A Queen-to-be forever.
A Queen who'll do whatever his highness desires.
She's your Queen-to-be.
A vision of perfection.
An object of affection to quench your royal fire.
Completely free from infection.
To be used at your discretion.
Waiting only for your direction.
Your Queen-to-beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee."

What Sports Car Are You?

I'm a Ferrari 360 Modena!

You've got it all. Power, passion, precision, and style. You're sensuous, exotic, and temperamental. Sure, you're expensive and high-maintenance, but you're worth it.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

Army Stretched Too Thin?

For you regulars here, you know that my average posting ratio of celebrity accostings to military matters is somewhere along the lines of 1 to 300.

So, with that in mind, I would be aghast if I didn't link to Dave's post that analyzes whether the Army is overstressed and stretched too thin. The article Dave picks apart, claims that because of this, we will not beat the Iraqi insurgency. For some non-partisan critical thinking, read it all.

For a quick interjection, I would say that, yes of course they are stretched and stressed. But the stress has yet to manifest itself in re-elistment rate decreases. The fact that our soldiers are re-enlisting for the most part, we know have the most battle tested force in the world. The low-level of casualties strengthens even further that a lot of soldiers are getting combat experience that is hard to simulate or game.

But, where is the breaking point? At what point do our soldiers, as a group, snap and we experience diminishing returns throughout the Army? This is an art that our commanders get paid to manage, but so far it seems like they have done a rather superb job.

Lastly, I always find it odd that analysts, pundits and politicians still claim the "insurgency," who three years into this war, has yet to acheive a single strategic objective, is always in the brink of bringing the American efforts to its knees.

Three country-wide elections with growing participation? Check.

The most murderous sect (al-Qaeda) of the insurgency isolated and rapidly losing support of not only the population, but of those they have fought side by side with? Check.

Insurgents dropping their guns and trying to work with the new government? Slowly, but check.

Homegrown security force taking the initiative and actively providing security for their country? Check.

Jeeze man, if this is failure, by all means, please continue to screw up like this for the indefinite future.

Kobe versus Jordan

I've been here, I really have. It's just that I've been working on this post about al-Qaeda for a few days and I'm struggling to actually add any real insight to it. I have a solid idea I'm working with, but I'm trying to whittle down the nasty tangents I have such a tendancy to go off on.

Speaking of tangents...

I want to talk about hoops for a few minutes. Sunday night, Kobe Bryant exploded and scored 81 point against the Raptors the other night. I usually don't care much for the NBA, but this has set off a number of basketball debates about Kobe's standing amoung the All-Time Greats.

This conversation is hard for me to have any objective opinion on, firstly because opinions on subjective matters in sports are hyperbolic by nature, and secondly because I actually remember Kobe as a young high school kid. See, I'm only a year older than this guy and went to a rival high school.

When I mean "rival," I mean geographically close, not rival as in "one that equals or almost equals another in a particular respect." I didn't play hoops for our high school, but I did frequently play pick-up games at several local parks where Kobe and his crew would frequent.

And, the guy was really good. My claim to fame goes like this: naturally we were playing against him in a game of pick-up and were getting mauled (forget the fact that even though there were 4 other teammates on his team, they only touched the basketball by accident). We took the ball out of bounds after Kobe did some double-pump reverse-layup thing that had all the girls cooing, and pushed it up the court. Clearly out of the game, a teammate of mine threw an ill-advised pass was picked off by one of the phatom-four. I sprinted back (ha Kobe, I'm faster than you!) just in time for Kobe to take a chest pass at the three-point line in full stride. I knew I was in trouble, but there was no way in hell I was going to step aside. I decided no matter how far he knocked me into the stands, I would take the charge.

I stood and watched him bound towards me. The entire park stopped and knew that nothing but death was in my future.

Kobe kept charging...

I closed my eyes...

Nothing happened.

I opened my eyes and the only thing I saw were a pair of blue mesh shorts.

The mother-f&^@er jumped over me and was now hanging on the rim with his crotch in my face.

I think they were blue mesh shorts, or at least they tasted like blue mesh shorts.

I feel your pain buddy...

So, yeah, Kobe was really good. But he was playing against medium-sized white kids from the suburbs. Imagine my shock when I found out that he was going into the NBA. He might be able to stick his crotch in my face, but he has to play against Jordan now? Ha!

Well, in a sense I was right--in the short-term. He didn't see significant playing time for a while and Jordan was still dominating during his second coming. However, the sports world knew that Jordan would be ending his career soon, and they were desperate to find a successor. Jordan was a spectacle unrivaled anywhere; he sold out visiting teams stadiums that were normally a quarter full just because he was in town. Every basketball player with a shred of talent would immediately invite comparisons to Jordan, because without a successor, the NBA would lose the biggest draw they've ever had.

Kobe was being groomed to do just that. He was extremely gifted, incredibly athletic and had the potential to portray that clean-cut, nice-guy image that pushed Jordan from superstar to World-wide Ambassador. But, he would fail initial expectations despite being on three championship teams. His career would be marred by claims of general selfishness, the inability to get along with teammates and coaches, and of course the rape accusations.

How quickly we forget. After all the well-deserved criticsms of his game, people are talking again the possibility of another Jordan 81-points later. But is he really better?

I still say, with out a doubt, no. I'm not here to make a judgement on character specifically because the righteous indignation that inevitably creeps into every sports conversations is as tiring as it is loathesome. Plus, although Kobe has had problems, Jordan had some skeletons in the closet that belied the angelic image he carried with him through his career. In the end, these guys are basketball players, not men I care to model my life after...and shut up about the roll-model to kids stuff already! Be a parent!

As it stands, Jordan is carrying 6 rings on his fingers. Not only were the Bulls dominant, players who came and played for Chicago all played their best as a teammate of Michael Jordan (see Paxon, Cartwright, Kerr, Grant, Armstrong, Rodman, etc.). Specifically, and more to the point, there is debate right now about Scotty Pippen, whose play was so elevated by Jordan, we are wondering how much of his Hall of Fame credentials were really as a direct result of playing with number 23.

In Kobe's case, we haven't seen that...yet. The only teammate he's had that is even remotely close to the Hall of Fame right now is Shaq, and it is a dubious argument to think that Kobe had anything to do with that. Other than that, most players have come in and out of LA with little more than a ring that was provided by the play of Kobe AND Shaq. Neither of those guys found ways to make their teammates much better than they were.

We'll see. Kobe has a lot of basketball left in him. He's still a selfish player, but he does seem to be slowly learning. 81 points is no fluke, but it still doesn't compare with Jordan's career legacy.

Then again, if Lamar Odom is someday considered one of the greats, not only will I eat my words, I'll eat a Buick...

"I Picked a Bad Day to Stop Sniffing Glue"

A little bit of Monday lunch-time hyperbole:

For all of you blog people, you probably found all of this on Drudge, but since I have a substantial non-blogging readership (read 3 out of my 5 total readers), here are two pillars of the self-loathing anti-American progressivist camp are having a complete meltdown. First up, Michael Moore who is fatter than a whaleshark that just swallowed Dom Deluise and Carny Wilson the brain behind the anti-Bush film Fahrenheit 9/11, doesn't like what he is seeing in Canada:

Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right? I know you have a great sense of humor, and certainly a well-developed sense of irony, but this is no longer funny. Maybe it's a new form of Canadian irony -- reverse irony! OK, now I get it. First, you have the courage to stand against the war in Iraq -- and then you elect a prime minister who's for it. You declare gay people have equal rights -- and then you elect a man who says they don't. You give your native peoples their own autonomy and their own territory -- and then you vote for a man who wants to cut aid to these poorest of your citizens. Wow, that is intense! Only Canadians could pull off a hat trick of humor like that. My hat's off to you.

Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do. You already have too many Americans telling you what to do. Well, actually, you've got just one American who keeps telling you to roll over and fetch and sit. I hope you don't feel this appeal of mine is too intrusive but I just couldn't sit by, as your friend, and say nothing. Yes, I agree, the Liberals have some 'splainin' to do. And yes, one party in power for more than a decade gets a little... long. But you have a parliamentary system (I'll bet you didn't know that -- see, that's why you need Americans telling you things!). There are ways at the polls to have your voices heard other than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These are no ordinary times, and as you go to the polls on Monday, you do so while a man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest? Is that how you want millions of us down here to see you from now on? The next notch in the cowboy belt? C'mon, where's your Canadian pride? I mean, if you're going to reduce Canada to a cheap download of Bush & Co., then at least don't surrender so easily. Can't you wait until he threatens to bomb Regina? Make him work for it, for Pete's sake.

But seriously, I know you're not going to elect a guy who should really be running for governor of Utah. Whew! I knew it! You almost had me there. Very funny. Don't do that again. God, I love you, you crazy cold wonderful neighbors to my north. Don't ever change.

Michael Moore

Michael, where's the French translation? Don't you know that most of your fans in Quebec don't have a sense of humor speak English? You typical, ignorant, jingoistic, American bastard.

Canada, make us proud. From now we'd like to tell people like Michael, if you don't like it, move to Canada France. Although, with Chirac threatening terrorists with nukes, Michael may be putting himself in the middle of another rightward migration.

However, I do acknowledge that it is very possible that Canada is only voting this way because they want to make sure that all of Hollywood stays out of their country. Very Machiavellian of you hosers.

Now, here is Saddam Hussein's mouthpiece Progressive #2, George Galloway:

There are...no...words...

Please, somebody help me. I'm unclean and am getting very cold. You must kill a marsupial in its place, and then pour the blood on the altar to make it go away.

Make it...:::shivers:::

..go..:::eyes welling up with tears::::

...away...:::vomits up own shoes::::

Geopolitical Landscape Surrounding Iran

Iran is providing to be a very tough question for the world to answer. I am going to argue, that in the short 27 years that the current Iranian leadership has been in power, they've been the beneficiary of circumstances where the United States has had limited options in dealing with them (a lot of it self-inflicted). Iran isn't purely serendipitous either; they've schrewdly taken the advantage at times where they know we were most vulnerable.

In 1979, there was a "student uprising" backed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Internal politics provided an opportune time for the overthrow of the Shah, but they also struck to the heart of the resolve of the United States. Stephen Green summarizes this event rather nicely:

How in the world did Iran get the idea that we'd rather pay them tribute and talk it out than fight?

That's an easy one: We taught them that.

Tehran took over the American Embassy – an act of war - in 1979, and President Carter quickly responded months later with a half-assed military operation which failed completely. Three years later, Iran's proxies in Lebanon killed hundreds of Marines, and President Reagan responded by forcefully withdrawing the survivors back to the homeland.

To be fair to Stephen, his specific argument points to how every President from Carter to Clinton in some way contributed to the Iranians knowing full well they can get away with murder. I fully agree with him, but, my point here is to discuss how prior internal factors within the United States contributed to creating poor options for the United States on the geopolitical landscape leading up to 1979.

In 1979, the United States was still haunted by the spectre of Viet Nam. A full analysis of the complexities of the Viet Nam War are far beyond the scope of this post (however it should be a worthy effort at some point as I believe about 10% of Americans actually understand Viet Nam in anything beyond pure hyperbole), but the results of Viet Nam were far reaching and undeniable: the United States was forced out of a war not due to the reality of events on the ground, but primarily by a campaign to sway the American population from support to opposition through the simple change of its narrative. Our poor leadership at the time didn't help as, even though the War was far from actually being lost on the ground, the media seized on this weakness to prove that we were, "in reality," losing. The ideological disinformation campaign by the media made Americans weary of following their civilian and military leadership to go forth into the hell that is war again without a heavy degree of skepticism.

The fire of skepticism was burning with Viet Nam, but Richard Nixon threw gasoline on it with Watergate. At no point in this country had we ever felt lower and more shameful about being American; we were reeling from a decade-and-a-half of bad leadership, and the media was there to keep the fire raging. The subsequent election of Jimmy Carter was the perfect embodiment of how we felt about ourselves.

While we were sitting around sulking in our bedrooms, the world continued to act without our permission. The Iranians smelled blood and took one the boldest shots at us in the history of our country. They literally invaded our sovereign territory, took our own people hostage and dared us to do something about it. 444-days later, Americans had simply had enough, and elected an optimist that rejected our self-loathing and promised to restore our confidence and resolve in ideals of our great nation. But, even though the Americans would pick themselves up off of the mat, the Iranians would hold and solidify their power, while initiating a proxy war aimed at controlling the Middle East.

To summarize our situation with Iran at this time: the Iranians took a bold step when they knew we were politically at our weakest. Bad leadership, along with the media, convinced Americans that our ideals were not worth fighting for; our backbone turned to mush.

Today we are in a similar situation, in that Americans are questioning our own ideals and whether we can morally drive change in a dark world. Unlike Viet Nam, the surrounding events of Iraq and Afghanistan have actually revealed strong (but not perfect) leadership in combination with a military that is clearly demonstrating it has no equal. However, just like Viet Nam, we have an ideologically driven media that is attempting to twist actual events into a narrative that was prevelent during the 70's. The effects are real, and Americans have not questioned their nature in such stark terms since that time.

This leads us to the one glaring blemish on our current leadership's resume: they have been very late in joining the information war we are fighting (once again, Stephen Green gives us a fanstatic essay, the Arm of Decision, on just what this fight is, where we have fallen short, and what needs to be done about it).

The Mullahs defecated in their robes after they saw how easily the United States handled an army they fought to a stalemate for eight years. But, the Mullahs cleaned up and went back to work. In the past they had perfomed masterfully in orchestrating prior proxy wars. They also knew the American tendancy towards civil implosion, and began to covertly and incrementally act against the American-led efforts towards stablizing Iraq. Iran didn't have to set up a puppet government to win, all they had to do was to keep the United States off-balance enough to the point where the American public would start questioning if the price was worth it.

Three years later, the Mullahs have learned that the United States is still extremely vulnerable to internal strife. In an act with similar boldness to taking the embassy in 1979, the Iranians have showed their hand, outwardly challenging the resolve of the United States once more by continuing their nuclear program. They are betting that the United States doesn't have enough political capital to follow-through.

However, the Iranians may be operating under a fallacious assumption. In spite of all the efforts to paint Iraq in a bad light, support meraculously hovers around the 50% mark, with a solid majority, whether they think we are winning or not, still supportive of staying in Iraq until victory. These numbers have ebbed and flowed a bit with current events, and the vitriolic attacks from the opponents for the war can make these numbers appear lower than they are in actuality. Does this mean that the Iranians may have overplayed their hand in thinking we don't have the guts to answer their challenge?

This puts the United States at the crossroads. If you can believe it, our response in this matter will affect more than just nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen. More importantly, it would demonstrate that the United States has the ability and the will to stop terror supporting regimes with force if neccessary. We are not at an ideal place politically right now, but we are in a much stronger position than we were in 1979. If we were able to strike at the heart of Iran and destroy their weapons programs, it would be an ideal follow-through to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. While ultimately, democracy is the long-term solution in Iran, we need to act fast to show that we mean what we say.

Who has the courage to answer boldness with boldness? Bush did it twice already, and although he has wavered at times, he has come through with the big ones. Well George, this may be the biggest one of them all. What's your move?

Before I Post, I Deserve Some Hazing

I do remember promising the goods last night, and I fell short. After work, a couple of cocktails with friends ended up with shots of Wild Turkey being passed around by some dot-commer with a rather large expense account (how old are we?).

Ok, only kidding. I have been a bit under the weather and was asleep earlier than I have ever been asleep.

Plus I'm trying to get this Iran thing squared away in my head, and well, just as I will point out again, it is quite the enigma which make my head spin on its axis like a world-ball on the finger of a Harlem Globetrotter.

No buckets of confetti though.

If I Was a Totalitarian Telling You I'll Post Something Later Tonight, I'd Say:

Work is busy. I'll have something up tonight.

In the meantime, either go listen to some Van Halen (which'll do you some good), or go hammer your fingers to some plywood (which will hurt tremendously).

What do you think Boris is here to make you do?

Back ('n Black)

Have you ever looked back what you've read, turned beat-red with small dots of sweat beeding up on your forehead in totally utter embarrassment of what you've produced?

Well, I come back from my trip to realize that I wrote the worst post in the short and undistinguished life of this site with "Iranian Interpretive Line Dancing." Not only was it bad, it was also stuck at the top of my page since I attempted my best impersonation of Ross Powers only to end up more like Vinko Bogataj (100 points to anyone who can tell me who that is without Googling it). Just like the Simpsons' rotten apple where Marge had the gambling addiction, it is best to briefly acknowledge the pain you have inflicted on your audience and move on.

My full apologies if you were in anyway harmed by it.

Anyway, my good buddy Kyle and I had a good time in Denver. Go say hi over at From the Still to the man if you have a minute. You can get some good recipes, bourbon knowledge and odd postings on Civil War battlefields when you have a minute.

But I repeat, do NOT encourage his Southern leanings.

This year, Kyle and I are going to experiment with some techie-geeky stuff--which is mostly just me going, "Hey Kyle this would be cool," and he spends hours toiling over making the thing work while I go out and try to find a date, or my next Guiness.

Guitar stuff is coming though...BIG TIME.

Now I have to go and practice...

Checking In

Just got back from snowboarding at Vail today. The snow was really great and it was sunny all day.

I've never had more fun snowboarding/skiing ever.

However, I took a pretty bad digger just after lunch. We had just finished a Black Diamond and were taking a Blue down to the lift, when I tried to cut and my right leg just wanted, well, not go anywhere. I went airborne and landed straight on my keister. When I got in the shower, I laughed as I saw one really white cheek and one really black and blue cheek.

...um, of course it was part of my normal routine inspection of my butt each day.

Usually, I'm just re-entacting the moonlight scene in Basic Instinct.

More pictures when I get back.

...of snowboarding.

Hit the Slopes

On my way to Colorado to visit Kyle. I'll check in while I'm there.

More later...

Iranian Interpretive Line Dancing

World Community: Iran, if you keep that naughty attitude up, prepare to face severe consequences. As a matter of fact, we are drawing a line right here, and there will be big trouble if you try to cross it.

World Community: Did you just flip me off?

Iran: _|_

World Community: The audacity...why, I never...you also crossed the red line, and could face some serious consequences. With us being sensitive to some cultural misunderstandings, you might not have understood what we meant by....

World Community: Ok, serious consequences mister. But, maybe you were offended by the "insensitive" red line. Look, I'll make is purple so you aren't "offended" by the line, but you are nonetheless "warned" of "grave consequences" for crossing this new line in the sand....

"We were in crisis management mode, offering dialogue," says a European diplomat close to the negotiations. "Now we have gone through every single red line. We have to move to another stage."

World Community: These bastards! Do they realize the severity of serious consequences? If they keep this up, we might have to get George Bush and Dick Cheney on the phone. Then we'll all be in world of shit.

Music for the Masses

Today, Glenn Reynolds posted about the latest iPod device: the iDJ.

The name--very clever.

Before I go on, I feel the overwhelming need to establish my technophile credentials.

I love technology, I love it...I do. I do.

Now that that's established, this toy looks jake and everything, but I'd rather just have one of these babies:

Plugged into this baby:

That's right, feel it. Feel the notes in your bones. Feel the strings tickling your neck as they moan out in harmonic beauty...

...where was I?

I was going to make an important announcement: 2006 is the year where TenFingers6Strings attempts to go audio. Apparently the fabulous designer, tech-master, and all out genius--Kyle at From the Still--has found that our ISP has increased the bandwidth on our sites to a figure that is the Earth's mass divided by, like, 7,256 or so.

This means that I'm going to play some guitar solos that go up all high up on the tiny string for you this year.

If you have a cat, put it away. It will be injured if exposed to the screams coming out of TenFingers6Strings in '06.

NOW Want Joe Pa to Resign

Gotta love Joe Paterno. The guy really has a way of putting his critics in a full-nelson, whether it be with an 11-1 season, or the verbal jab. He's coach of the year, but now I think that he deserves a medal for being the latest in a long line of high profile bi-peds with a shorter third leg to piss of someone from NOW:

Paterno's remarks came two days after NOW Pennsylvania president Joanne Tosti-Vasey said she was "appalled" by Paterno's comments last week, saying they represent an institutional insensitivity that endangers women.

A day before the Orange Bowl, Paterno was asked about Nicholson and replied by talking about past suspensions of Penn State players. He then added: "There's some tough -- there's so many people gravitating to these kids. He may not have even known what he was getting into, Nicholson. They knock on the door; somebody may knock on the door; a cute girl knocks on the door. What do you do?

"Geez. I hope -- thank God they don't knock on my door because I'd refer them to a couple of other rooms," Paterno continued. "But that's too bad. You hate to see that. I really do. You like to see a kid end up his football career. He's a heck of a football player, by the way; he's a really good football player. And it's just too bad."

Tosti-Vasey called on Paterno to resign and sent e-mails to both him and the university president.

Paterno told ESPN on Tuesday that he would always consider the source of the resignation request.

"If my kids calls for it [my resignation], if my squad calls for it ... but when people don't know what they're doing are looking for publicity or trying to give publicity to their cause or looking for some sort of scapegoat, no, it doesn't bother me," he said.

Oh, how shocked I am that the "source" Joe Pa is asking us to consider has a hyphenated last name. SHOCKED! SHOCKED! SHO...GET YOUR MAN HANDS OFF OF MY VA......!!!

Well, Mrs. Tosti-Vasey (incidentally, whose name reminds of something I get at the end of a massage here in Chinatown), maybe if your timing on calling for his resignation was a little better, like after Penn State's 4-7 record last year, you would of had cheering section of Penn State fans from here to the sea. And don't give me that "but he said it this year" stuff--Joe Pa is 79 years old and I guarantee that you if you sat through one football practice in the last 5 decades, you'd be liable to hear a few remarks far more colorful than the one you've heard after the Orange Bowl.

Instead, Mrs. Attention-Whore, you pick the time when Joe Pa is, again, standing on top of the world to launch your claws into him. Geeze, you'd think with all those women in your organization that have haircuts like Jonny Unitas, you'd know a little more about football.

Come on over here Tosti, Joe Pa'll ease that tension that is causing you to act like such a bitch.

Photos From Iraq

Strategypage has a group of great photographs of some live action in Iraq. There are about 13 of them, but I thought this one was really cool:

IMAGE REMOVED...HACKED.

Sign Me Up for Term Limits

Sometimes George Will says things that just resonate like the first eight notes of Beethoven's Fifth. Via Instapundit, Will describes how we can eliminate the behind-the-scenes money exchanges between politicians and interest groups:

The way to reduce rent-seeking is to reduce the government's role in the allocation of wealth and opportunity. People serious about reducing the role of money in politics should be serious about reducing the role of politics in distributing money. But those most eager to do the former -- liberals, generally -- are the least eager to do the latter.

This is why I will always in my deepest of hearts, be a small-government conservative (not an irrational an impractical no-government Libertarian). The government just like a market, is a feeding ground for people to flock to where the money is. In the private world, as an idea develops into a market, people run to the feed line and microeconomics 101 takes over. People will to organize and structure themselves to take advantage of economies of scale, while maximizing their purchasing power parity between other economies. It is very simple. Market forces, in an economic system, allow those that are really good at doing what they do to float to the top, maximizing the results for the overall market. This model is the fairest and most just available, even with the real world ineffeciencies that don't make this a perfectly efficient model.

The government, on the other hand, has a pile of money that they sit on, where certain interests battle for the right to gain the "grant" or "bill." The government gets to play King by arbitrarily deciding who gets what. Markets don't force the government to play an "efficient" hand, because they don't have to worry about being beaten by a competitor in the marketplace who can "do things better than them."

This is where government, like a slow fog, can actually develop into a form of tyrrany over time (just look at Europe). The government sees people flocking to the breadline, and no matter what, there always isn't enough to go around. So, they keep going back to the people trying to convince them of the necessity for more dollars. Either deficits increase, or taxes go up to make up for spending shortfalls.

Now, what seperates me from the Libertarians, and even a lot of small-government conservatives, is that I am more pragmatic, and am willing to allow for some inefficient allocation within our system. National defense is paramount, our roads need to be fixed, and I can tolerate a certain level of social programs as the majority of Americans will always lean this way. This is not about logical arguments, this is about risk-tolerance, and most Americans in someway feel more comfortable with a cushion.

However, it is hard to argue, in a reasonable fashion, against the fact that our government is spending insane amounts of money on frivilous crap. Read this list and a dare you to rationally argue that any of these items are necessary government functions...especially in a time of war (I really am willing to hear any arguments in support). Also, note that this list is bi-partisan--if there is anything you can get Republicans and Democrats to at least implicitly agree on, is that big government is good.

This is a good place to start. By limiting the government, we'd also be limiting the length of the feed lines, or rent-seekings as Will says, leading into the Capitol building. Will has a practical solution, but its prognosis is bleak:

A surgical reform would be congressional term limits, which would end careerism, thereby changing the incentives for entering politics and for becoming, when in office, an enabler of rent-seekers in exchange for their help in retaining office forever. The movement for limits -- a Madisonian reform to alter the dynamic of interestedness that inevitably animates politics -- was surging until four months after Republicans took control of the House. In May 1995 the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that congressional terms could not be limited by states' statutes. Hence a constitutional amendment is necessary. Hence Congress must initiate limits on itself. That will never happen.

Do you think the majority of Americans care enough to force reform on their big-government representatives?

I don't think so. But remember that they next time there is widespread, collective outrage over the next Abramoff.

The Iranian Conundrum

Want to know how to throw any kind of policy decision maker/analyst/pundit into a such a tizzy, they'll end up sitting on the curb frothing at the mouth?

Mention Iran.

Its hard to look at a situation without getting heartburn that factors limited political capital, toothless allies, two fledgling democracies on its borders and a nuke on the horizon.

For the first time that I've seen, someone has had the courage to take a crack at what it would take to formally end Iran's nuclear ambitions through force. I'll have more thoughts on this later, but for now, venture over to The Colossus to get the ball rolling.

The prognosis is not very optimal.

Fat Pigs Park for Free at the Airport

In George Orwell's Animal Farm, Old Major, the ideological father of the revolution against the Farmer, tries to bring a more authentic, collective society to the farm by creating an ideal path that supposidly stands in stark contrast to the farm's previous oppressor:

"Your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest....we must not come to resemble him...No animal must ever live in a house or sleep in a bed, or wear clothes, or drink alcohol, or smoke tobacco, or touch money, or engage in trade."

After the successful revolution, the those who preached the ideals of justice, equality and fraternity, which were used as a means to gain power, were then engaged in a power struggle where their rule was threatened. Squeeler, speaking of Napolean (the allegorical depiction brutal tyrant Stalin) says this:

"Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"

As Napoleon engaged in a strict information campaign geared towards the elimination of those labled "enemies of the farm" (read, enemies of him), he also found the original ideals that the Animal Farm were based upon were flexible not only to help secure, but also to provide him with the excess to live like a King:

The Seven Commandments, Animal Farm's original Constitution

1. Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes on four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.

The Commandments, after the pigs' revisions
1. "Four legs good, two legs better!"
2. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
3. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
4. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
5. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

By the end of the story, our leader of the people who rode in on such lofty ideals was sleeping in a bed, drinking like a fish, walking on two legs and stopped pretending he was running a socialist state. After all the blood spilled, the Animal Farm ended with this:

"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

The fundamental lack of understanding of human nature is at the center of those who support the measure of "equality of results." Regardless of their intentions, an individual, or a collective elite, will rise to the top and will consolidate power by herding the sheep into line. This will be done by always referring to the greater good and to the justice and equality of all. Of course implicit in this is that those in "leadership" will continue to make all the hard decisions for us. The tighter the control on the subjected population, the greater the excesses taken at the top.

Application: Leaders in San Francisco have long lauded the roll of collectivism as an ideal. Their "concern" for the gaps between the rich and the poor have led to many state-controlled ideals--such as rent control, banning of chain businesses, redistribution of tax dollars to the homeless, etc. This has all been done under the guise of "sacrifice for the greater good." While in no way do I think that any of our elected leaders are in the same class as Napoleon, they do display the inherent hypocrisy that comes from those that always demand "sacrifice for the greater good": the responsibility will fall on the shoulders of population, and not on the leadership who demands it.

Case in point, today the San Francisco Chronicle has revealed the perks that our elected officials and "common-man" leadership enjoy at the SFO Airport:

It sure pays to have friends on the San Francisco Airport Commission -- judging by the 169 politicians, business people, labor leaders, commissioners' relatives and society types blessed with "courtesy'' airport parking permits.

....Plus, there's a big labor contingent -- most notably California Labor Federation chief Art Pulaski and his wife, Service Employees International Union local boss Josie Mooney.

The free-parking list also includes Bay Area Reps. Nancy Pelosi, George Miller, Lynn Woolsey, Tom Lantos and Pete Stark, plus an assortment of state legislators, San Mateo County officials, and various San Francisco department heads, and commissioners and top-level mayoral aides.

Everyone on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has a permit except president Aaron Peskin, who said, "I don't feel it's appropriate.''

Even Oakland bigwigs get in on the act -- namely, City Council members Ignacio De La Fuente, Larry Reid, Desley Brooks and Henry Chang. All have free parking privileges in San Francisco to go along with the passes they have at the Oakland airport.

Providing VIPs with free parking privileges is hardly new, and it's never been without controversy. In the early 1990s, it was off the charts at SFO, with more than 5,000 passes reportedly in circulation.

That number was reduced to a mere 300 by 1999. Then came a scathing civil grand jury report that said the permits amounted to perks for an "old boy's network.''

The grand jury suggested the parking passes be eliminated altogether, calling them "elitist-style benefits to a few, who are chosen in a manner that suggests favoritism.''

The purpose of illustrating Animal Farm in regards to this story is not to demonstrate how we are sliding down the slippery slope to a Stalin-esque society in San Francisco--it is to demonstrate that human impulses often overrule the orginal ideals set out towards the goal of any type of societal collectivisation.

In other words, Tom Ammiano demands that you to sacrifice your business to provide for a collective health-care benefit that will put you out of business, but he'll be the first in line to skirt out of paying for parking at the airport. As there is nothing illegal about this proposition, it isn't exactly demonstrating the behavior of a man that understands the plight and sacrifice of the common man.

These elected officials, carrying their allegorical heft who are supposed to be our public servants, will grab a free-lunch whenever they can, and hope that you'll pay the bill for it.

Bad Monday

I haven't been this excited about college basketball in...well, forever. The Indiana Hoosiers have not had a team this talented since the days of Calbert Chaney and Alan Henderson during their '92-'93 Final Four days.

The Hoosiers are 10-2 and have started the Big Ten season by beating Michigan and Ohio State at home (geeze imagine if this was football season!), and have demonstrated that they are definitely the team to beat in the probably the deepest league in the country (the Big East is very close).

Then, just as I'm about to eat my lunch, I throw up in the mouth when I read this:

The Indiana Hoosiers thought they had sophomore D.J. White slowly rounding back into top form from a broken foot he suffered in mid-November. Monday they learned that's not the case. The University has announced today that White has re-injured his broken left foot and will be out indefinitely as he waits for this latest injury to heal.

The injury apparently was suffered when White fell to the floor during Saturday's Ohio State contest and another player accidentally stepped on his left foot. The injury was not in the same place on the left foot bone that White's previous break occurred, but rather at a different spot on the same bone. Still, the injury is believed to be just as serious and that could have him out for at least the next six weeks, maybe even longer.

With this injury, Indiana went from a Final Four contender, to a dangerous, but probably not national threat. Having (last year's Big Ten Freshman of the Year) DJ White and Marco Killingsworth in the post, we have been able to exploit the double-team better than anyone. Now, we are going to have a freshman replacing DJ's minutes, and if Killingsworth gets into foul trouble, we are going to have to push a smaller line-up on the floor.

Someone needs to ask what Davis did to piss off the basketball gods, as he just can't seem to find a break.

At least it looks like Lewis Monroe is ready to step up at the point. This could give us a little more leverage with DJ going down...again.

Final Analysis: Bloody hell.

Monday Morning

Hope everyone had a good weekend. More later...

Security Watchtower

Just a quick, and rare, shout-out from TF6S.

If you are following news on the War and other national security related issues, you should be reading Security Watchtower everyday. They are regularly posting stories with clear insight that you probably won't read anywhere else.

This and the fact that these guys are indefatigable. There are new posts filled with loads of information everyday.

If you aren't making it a regular stop, well, shame on you...

How Are We Doing?

Since the inception of this blog, most of the content in this blog has been focused on the War Against Islamic Fascism. Due to range of falsehoods, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and geneneral lack of historical perspective, I've spent most of my posts defending the execution of the war against the charges shrouded in this fog. However, although I've defended the War against these charges, which come in daily quantities as dense as a septic tank after all-you-can-eat-Chalupa-night at Taco Bell, I have never once argued for the flawlessness of what I otherwise consider a very well done job.

Bobby Bran wrote one of the best posts I have read to this date about what has gone right and wrong in the war. It was clear, analytical, extremely constructive and well-written. In it Bobby lays out the fundamental problems our military and political leaders have had in developing a solid counter-insurgency strategy. First he eloquently describes how force can be a necessary evil in conducting a successful strategy that captures the "hearts and minds" of the population effected by the insurgency:

...In fact, however, all wars actually require some mixture of kinetic action and the civil-military programs endorsed by Professor Elkins. In stability operations (such as a Bosnia or Kosovo) the battlefield might be heavy on the latter and light on the former; in a conventional war (like Korea or the Fulda Gap), the mixture might be opposite. And against an active insurgency (such as Malaya then or modern Iraq), the mixture probably falls somewhere in between, with kinetic action supporting civil-military operations. But, despite what Professor Elkins might believe, a "hearts and minds" strategy can and will include applied violence in support of political goals-- that's what war is all about-- and the reason is quite simple: as Machiavelli argued and tyrants have demonstrated throughout history, possessing the "hearts and minds" is not enough if your adversaries can still control their behavior through force and fear. Or as Texas A&M's Brian McAllister Linn noted in his fantastic book, the US Army and Counterinsurgency in the Philippine War, 1898-1902 (on my recommended reading list):

...Thus, under my (admittedly poor and untrained) conception of counterinsurgency history, the definition of "hearts and minds" includes some amount of violent action to have established the conditions that make the people's "hearts and minds" relevant in the first place. Under Professor Elkins's conception, however, the repressive behavior of the British represents a mockery of their "hearts and minds" rhetoric. (In fairness, Professor Elkins is an African studies scholar whose research is critical of British detention and forced migratory policy in Kenya, and some of her critique in Malaya may stem from her greater knowledge of British colonial and post-colonial policy in Africa). I'm not saying I'm right and she is wrong-- the beauty of "Big Fish" is that the individual viewer gets to make his/her own interpretation-- but I will argue that a campaign designed to win "hearts and minds" without establishing at least rudimentary control over that population will absolutely fail against an enemy who is asserting that control.

Then he points out the weaknesses and mistakes our military has made in effectively implementing a solid "hearts and minds" strategy:

There's two points to this one. First, if there are colonels-- at the War College, no less-- who truly do not understand that when the crucial linkage of tactics supporting operations that support strategy breaks down, then strategic objectives are unlikely to be realized... well, then the Army's in a lot worse shape than even I had thought. But I would venture that this is likely more of an exception than the norm. Secondly, Biddle is absolutely correct that "Strategy is the occupation of a very few in the Army" and there is an institutional reason for this: the vast majority of Army officers spend their time in tactical-level units: platoons, company command, battalion staff, brigade staff; in an Army officer's first fifteen years, he will likely spend two to three years in school, and at least six to eight years in a tactical-level unit. Time spent away is as likely to be spent in a non-tactical environment (a functional area, a training and doctrine assignment, or recruiting) as it is to be spent in an operational or strategic-level assignment. And even those majors or lieutenant-colonels who do spend a year or two on a general staff are likely to focus their attention in one narrow field (personnel, logistics, plans, etc.), giving them a deep amount of expertise in this field, but little holistic comprehension of strategy and operations. And when the end state of all these assignments is to go back to a tactical assignment (battalion/brigade operations officer or executive officer, and eventually battalion command), then there's just not the incentive to learn strategy. Until the Army recognizes this, and provides officers with the opportunity and incentive to think strategic, it will continue to be left only to those officers-- the Jay Dymeks, Tom Jagusches, and Mike Prevous-- who are personally interested, and choose to study it on their own. Again, an organizational change that has long been needed.

...I've been saying a lot of this for quite some time now, but it bears repeating here: an attrition-based strategy that relies almost exclusively upon finding and killing the enemy will not win this kind of war; victory requires an effects-based, intelligence-driven gameplan that subordinates kinetic operations to information operations, and targets the enemy's strategy, not just the insurgents themselves. Killing insurgents is necessary, but it's also meaningless if it's not supporting an appropriate strategy-- we simply cannot kill the insurgents as fast or as effectively as the enemy will regenerate them. And if we go down that route, then rest assured that it's what we will still be doing decades from now-- if, that is, we haven't already lost the popular will to continue the fight (and that's a really big if). This is a recurring problem, not just for inflexible Army doctrine and culture, but even in the business world: in Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman's First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently, they note that sub-optimal organizations have a tendency to "let the creed overshadow the message."

It is objectively true that the United States has been enormously effective at killing and beating insurgents on the battlefield. Whether it has been house-to-house operations, brigade-level operations, intelligence driven strategic strikes, counter-IED ops, etc., our boys on the ground have soundly handled an extremely tenacious, bloodthirsty and ruthless group of professional terrorizers with flexibility and creativity. However, the end-game, for quite a while after the initial invasion, was unclear--no one quite knew what would constitute a win? We had never been in such a war before, so