It's not often that your punter is the MVP. That honor is usually reserved for the marquee positions. But Saturday night, Dustin Colquitt put the Vols in a position to win, giving Tennessee the edge they needed to overcome a very talented and motivated South Carolina team. The Vols didn't come out flat, as many feared, nor did the weather seem to have much effect on the offense. Instead, it was South Carolina's gritty determination to win that made the game a lot closer than most predicted. Led by their sensational running back, Demetris Summers, the Gamecocks shredded the Vol defensive line, which was plagued by poor tackling and missed assignments. On the other side of the ball, the Vol rushing attacks was blunted by South Carolina's defense, one of the highest ranked rushing defenses in the nation.
The Gamecocks out passed, out rushed, and outplayed the Vols, running 15 more plays and gaining 105 more yards. So how did they lose? Dustin Colquitt's punt's averaged 20 yards longer than the Gamecocks. Over 7 punts, that totals 140 yards, which means that Colquitt's leg gained the equivalent of just over half the Vol's offensive output.
It was enough to turn an even match into a win for the Vols.
Report Card
Quarterback: B-
No interceptions, 2 touchdowns, a few ducks, but nothing dangerous, Clausen played a respectable game. The call for the fade route in the overtime was risky, but when you have a receiver like Banks, it's worth the risk. And it worked.
Running Backs: C+
The lack of production in the running game may not have been all their fault; the offensive line has to share part of the blame. But there were bad decisions on the part of both Davis and Houston that cost the team yards.
Receivers: B
The Vols handled a tough South Carolina secondary pretty well. The Gamecock defenders played to not give up the big play, leaving only the dhorter routes open. I would have liked to see the receivers to more after the catch.
Offensive Line: C-
2 sacks, barely 100 yards rushing. I expected better from this unit. Without solid blocking, no offense, no matter how talented, can perform well.
Defensive Line/Linebackers: B-
They get a mixed grade here. Only one sack, and they couldn't tackle Summers. But they played a "bend, don't break" style, kept pressure on Pinkins, and generally frustrated the Gamecock offense, despite spending a lot of time on the field, while the Vol offense spluttered.
Defensive Secondary: B
Only one interception, but the secondary played well, particularly when backing up the front 7 on stopping the run. Summers could get past the line, but couldn't break through the secondary.
Special Teams: A+
I've already talked about Colquitt, who had an outstanding night, but I'll add this. I would vote him the SEC Player of the Week.
Not that I'm biased or anything.
However, I also have to mention the other special team players, who decided the game. The blocked punt in the first quarter provided the margin of victory. Without it, we lose.
Coaching: B-
The Vols are still making too many drive killing penalties. Poor tackling techniques allowed Demetris Summers to gain too many yards after the first hit. The play calling was decent, keeping a balance between the rush and pass, despite what had to be a frustrating performance by the offensive line.
Overall: B-
As Fulmer said after the game, the Vols didn't do much right during the game. As a buddy of mine said, "We couldn't pass, we couldn't run, but we sure could kick the hell out of the ball!" When you have an off game, and still come out with a W, particularly against a quality opponent, that is something you can build on.
Next week, we go to Auburn, a team which has improved tremendously following their 0-2 start. The Vols will have to play much better if they want to keep their undefeated status.
You know, I was kind of joking when I endorsed Mary's run for governor, but when I was checking out her website (I was reading the articles. Really.) This girl actually has a campaign platform! Agree with her priorities or not, you have to admit that her platform is more detailed than anything Arnold has come up with.
Lou Holtz has already conceded this game. But then again, to listen to him, he faces the best team in the nation every week. Holtz is famous for giving the attitude that it will take miraculous play from his team to notch a win, even if the opponent is Eastern Kentucky State Technical College.
This week he truly has a tough test in the Vols. Their play last weekend showed teamwork, competitive spirit, and discipline, qualities that were in short supply last season.
Of course, many prognosticators are looking back to the last SEC championship game the Vols appeared in. ( I won't say they played in it.) After a big win over the Gators in the Swamp, they played flat against LSU and lost a shot at the National Championship. Yes, there is a danger of the Vols overlooking South Carolina, sandwiched between Florida and a killer three game stretch (Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama). But I think the Vols are a smarter team than they were two years ago. I don't think they will let the Gamecocks steal a win in Neyland stadium.
But, the Gamecocks may just earn one. The Gamecocks are ranked in the top five in rushing defense, and allow about 2 yards per carry. Our offensive line has not lived up to pre-season expectations yet, which could create problems for the Vol running attack. Clausen has yet to show any consistency, and, given the weather forecast, (cold and rainy) I wouldn't count on his passing ability to help if the Gamecocks bottle up the run with 7-8 men in the box.
The difference maker will be the Tennessee defense, which should prove more than enough to keep the Gamecocks penned up. Holtz's team has a better chance of scoring on defense, aided by a UT turnover.
A rainy day could mean a closer score, but I'm still going with the Vols to win, 28-10
I was going to write this piece today, but John Hawkins got to it before I did. All I want to add is this question:
Do we really want to turn over the rebuilding of Iraq to an organization that's cutting and running at the first sign of difficulty?
I don't think so. It takes a spine to do what needs to be done, and the UN had theirs surgically removed years ago.
A radioactive package bound for the US was seized in Kiev
The regional emergencies ministry said the package, discovered Tuesday, was emitting radiation at a rate thousands of times higher than the norm in Kiev of 0.05 milliroentgens an hour.
OK, here's a quick primer for the non-nukes out there. There are several types of radiation, alpha, beta, gamma and neutron. The amount of biological damage (REM) per unit exposure (roentgen) for each type of radiation varies. We use a number called the quality factor to determine the amount of biological damage for a given exposure to radiation. The quality factor for gamma and beta radiation is 1, for neutron radiation is 3-10, and 20 for alpha. While the article doesn't specify the type of radiation, we can rule out alpha and beta because the packaging materials, even if it were just cardboard and paper, would have shielded the radiation, and the package would not have been detected. That leaves us with gamma or neutron radiation, so our quality factor ranges from 1 to 10. We'll take the conservative (most limiting) approach and assume a QF of 10.
The article tells us that the radiation levels were "thousands of times higher than the norm in Kiev of 0.05 milli-roentgens per hour." (I'm assuming that the dose rate they're using was taken on contact with the package.) A milli-roentgen (mr) is 1/1000 of a roentgen. Again, we don't have a hard number, so we'll go conservative again and assume "thousands" to mean 10,000.
10,000 X 0.05 mr/hr = 500 mr/hr.
Apply the quality factor of 10 to get the biological dose (rem)
500mr/hr neutron radiation X 10 (QF) = 5000 mrem/hr or 5 rem/hr.
So, how does this compare to dose rates we accept as a matter of course?
Normal background exposure in the US runs at about 0.36 rem per year. A chest x-ray gives the recipient about .3 rem per exposure. A routine heart catheterization gives the recipient about 25 rem over 10 minutes.
By the way, the Health Physics society is a great resource for radiation information.
So what we have is a package that is hot, but how dangerous is it? Looked at as an acute exposure, that is, all at once, it's moderately dangerous. Assuming a whole body exposure, again, the most limiting case, after 20 hours of contact with the package, you could expect mild radiation sickness. After 60 hours, severe radiation sickness, and possibly death. 70 hours of whole body exposure would result in death in 50% of the cases without medical intervention. 120 hours would be fatal in almost every case. Remember, for these numbers to hold true, you would have to be in direct physical contact with the package the entire time. Simply moving three feet away from the package would drip the dose by an order of magnitude, in which case it would take 200 hours of constant exposure to get to a dose where you might expect some radiation sickness.
Remember, this is all based on worst case assumptions. Going the other way, assuming a gamma source (QF=1) and a radiation level of 5,000 times background, the dose rate drops to 250 mrem/hr. At that rate, you would have to hug the package for 400 hours to achieve a dose which might make you a little bit sick.
In short, this package is probably not a terror device of any sort. My guess is it's a calibration source that's been shipped improperly.
The general who relieved Clark of his command several months early has said he will not vote for him.
I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote.
That's gotta sting.
Very rarely do you hear a relieving commander talk about the guy he relieved. It's even more rare to hear him say anything negative about the former commander.
I've thought about this long and hard. I know the kind of weight the blogosphere carries in the political arena, and I wanted to make sure not to abuse that power.
I've considered the issues, reviewed the candidates and their platforms, evaluated the effectiveness of their campaigns, and decided who I will endorse.
Before I announce the name, I want to assure you that I've not been improperly influenced in any way by any candidate. In fact, I've had no contact with any of them, so I can be assured of an impartial, fair judgment.
The new governor will face many tough problems, including a tremendous budget deficit, an unruly state government which has lost touch with the common people, and a deeply divided constituency. The problems facing California are pretty much beyond solution, so in the end, it doesn't really matter which poor bastard gets the job; they're screwed no matter what they do. Therefor, I'm pleased to award the coveted Shots Across the Bow endorsement to Mary Carey.
She's used to it.
To go along with my endorsement, I'm contributing $5.00 to her campaign, in hopes that she'll send me a poster or something.
I just finished reading The Hydrogen Economy, and if the blurb on the back ("Now the hydrogen movement has a marquee spokesman."--Peter Coy, Business Week) is accurate, the hydrogen movement is in deep trouble.
The first clue was the simple observation that, out of 250 pages of text, only about 40 actually deal with hydrogen power! Even more telling, in those 40 pages, there is virtually no discussion of precisely how hydrogen is to be harnessed. Instead, Rifkin talks about how we will use renewable sources of energy to produce the hydrogen, without mentioning that those sources are nowhere near enough to produce the amount of hydrogen needed to replace fossil fuels. He dismisses the tremendous cost differential, assuming that further research will reduce it, again with no specifics. For the last thirty pages, he sings the praises of the new hydrogen economy, how it will end the monopolistic practices of Big Oil, and how everybody will produce their own energy in a distributed network, and how "all manner of things wi' be well."
Unfortunately, he seems to have no clue about how this will happen. He looks at hydrogen power and fuel cells as a black box solution. Once we have them in place, and they work the way he envisages, then everything will be wonderful. The problem is that, his blithe pronouncements to the contrary, there are several very real difficulties in implementing his vision, difficulties that are not amenable to easy solution. For instance, he speaks of using hydrogen to store energy from renewable resources, but he neglects to mention that the energy released through oxidation of hydrogen is less than the energy needed to generate the hydrogen in the first place. Funny how, even though he uses and abuses the concept of entropy thoughout the first portion of the book, he neglects to take into acount it's very real impact on hydrogen usage.
The book does make an excellent case for moving away from oil, and that is its biggest strength. Rifkin presents a clear, well argued, and well referenced argument that we are at the end of the fossil fuel age, and need to move on to a new source of energy. While I disagree with some of his points, particularly those based on the global warming model, he still presents a compelling case on his other two points, that cheap oil is going the way of the dinosaurs, and even if it weren't, relying on an energy source controlled by unstable States is foolhardy.
Had Rifkin titled the book The End of the Dinosaur Economy, I would have nary a quibble. But based on his title, I was looking for a discussion of the pros and cons of a hydrogen based fuel system, aong with some discussion of how to make the transition. Instead, I got a picture of how bad things are now, compared to how good things could be, with no map of how to get from here to there.
You're at your desk at work when the phone rings.
"Is this Mr. Stephen Johnson?" The voice is clinically detached, with a touch of professional sympathy.
"Yes, it is. Can I help you?"
"Mr. Johnson, my name is Dr. Fallon. We have your daughter Grace here at the Medical Center Emergency Room."
Your heart races as time slows to a crawl. A car accident? No, she was in school. A shooting? Illness? She'd had a slight cold and fever for the last week. In fact, you'd tried to keep her home last Tuesday, but she insisted on going, saying she had a major test that she couldn't afford to miss. She went to school, and later that morning, the nurse had called to get your permission to give her some aspirin. She come home a little pale, and went directly to bed. Wednesday, she stayed home, but the next day she said she felt better, even though she still seemed very pale and weak, and went back to school.
"My god! What's wrong?"
"Mr. Johnson, I'm afraid I'm not at liberty to discuss this over the phone, but we need you to get down here right away. Gracie is in very serious condition."
Fear instantly transmutes to anger. "She's in serious condition, but you can't tell me what's going on? What the hell kinda place are you running? What's wrong with my daughter?"
"Sir, we can explain when you get here." The doctor's voice was less detached, now filled with urgency.
"Hurry," he said, and hung up.
You leave your office and head out to the car, mind whirling with worries and fears. Gracie has been on your mind a lot recently. She'd changed so much over the last couple of years. Her mother had died 4 years ago, and there had been some rough patches then, but you had survived, and even grown closer together. She used to pal around with you, tell you everything, even about which boys she liked, and which ones liked her. You did your best to be mother and father, and for those things where you couldn't fill in, Gracie's grandmother took over. Your family was healing.
But that all changed last year.
Everybody tells you that she's just a normal teenager, but she's been so moody lately. And the way she dressed! Dear god in heaven!
Her grades had fallen off a bit; she wasn't in danger of failing, but the long string of B's with an occasional A had become C's with an occasional D. She stopped seeing most of her old friends, and started hanging out with a new crowd. She started staying out later, staying home less, spending the night at her new girlfriends house, and if she was home, she'd lock herself in her room for hours at a time, and listen to that godawful racket she called music. When you'd tried to talk with her, she'd just yelled at you, telling you to leave her alone.
"Dad, I'm 17! I'm not a little kid anymore! I can handle my own life. God! Why can't you just leave me alone!"
You even went to her school last week, to talk to Mrs. Peters, the counselor. Maybe Gracie talked to her. Maybe she was missing her mother. Maybe there was something more you could do.
But the counselor wasn't much help.
"Mr. Johnson, teenagers these days have many more issues to deal with than you and I did. Grace is working things out on her own. What she needs from you right now is your support and some space. Give her some time, and a little privacy. She'll come around."
You pull up to the Emergency Room, park the car, and rush in. You ask the nurse at the desk where to find your daughter. She types Gracie's name into her terminal and tells you to have a seat; the doctor will be with you shortly. You ask her what's wrong with your little girl, and she tells you you'll have to wait for the doctor.
Fear overpowers the anger at being kept in the dark, and you sink into the hard plastic seat in the waiting room. Your mind races like an engine in neutral with a stuck throttle, running in circles as you wait to find out what's going on. Eventually, a male voice calls out your name, and you stand up. You look at the doctor's face, and you know the news isn't good. Doctors with good news don't have to wear the professional mask.
"Mr. Johnson, I'm Dr. Fallon. Grace is suffering from complications from RU-486. The fetus was only partially ejected, and the remaining tissue caused a massive infection, and serious bleeding. We've got the bleeding stopped now, but the blood loss has left her weak, and the infection is spreading rapidly. We're doing everything we can, but she's in very bad shape. I have to be honest with you; it's going to be very dicey."
There's a roaring in your ears as you try and take in everything you were just told.
Your mind is numb with shock. Your little girl is fighting for her life after having an abortion? How could this happen without your knowledge? Hell, the school had to get your permission to give her an aspirin! How could she get an abortion without you knowing about it?
"I don't understand. This pill, isn't it safe?"
"Yes sir, it is, but there are sometimes complications."
"My daughter may be dying, and you call it a complication!" The anger is back, and now it is a full blown rage. "Where is my daughter? I want to see her right now!"
"Mr. Johnson, you'll have to calm down. Seeing Grace like this won't do you or her any good."
Your rage collapses, giving way to fear again, as you realize that the doctor is right. There will be a time to loose the rage again, but this isn't it. Seeing you control your temper, the doctor leads you into an exam room, and you see Gracie on the table. There are tubes and wires, and an IV, and she's got a breathing tube up her nose. She's panting for breath, and a nurse is sponging her forehead. You walk over to the bed, and sit down beside her, taking her hand.
It burns like a fire.
"Oh, Gracie," you say softly. "I'm here for you."
She turns her head and opens her eyes. "Daddy?" Her voice is barely more than a whisper. "I'm so sorry, Daddy! I didn't want this to happen. I didn't want to disappoint you." Tears roll down the side of her face, and your heart breaks.
"Gracie, you can't disappoint me, little girl. I'm your dad. I'll always be there for you."
"I was so scared, Daddy. I didn't know what to do. I didn't know how to tell you."
"Shhhh. baby girl. It's OK. You don't have to say anymore. I'm here now, and I'll take care of everything."
She's not listening. She's unburdening herself, telling you everything, and as the tears flow, you listen.
"I didn't know what to do. We'd only fooled around a couple of times, then he dumped me. He said I wasn't any good at it, and he was going to find somebody who was. Then a week or two later, I missed my period. I wanted to tell you, but I was so afraid that I couldn't. I tried so hard to tell you, but I didn't know how to break through, so I went to Mrs. Peters. She took me to a clinic, and they told me I could take this pill, and it would make it go away. It seemed like the only way out, so I scheduled an appointment. Mrs. Peters fixed my schedule, and I went to the clinic and took the pill. They told me I would feel bad for a couple of days, but it kept getting worse, so I went back to Mrs. Peters this morning, and she brought me here. I'm so sorry Daddy! I know I've let you down!"
"No, baby, you haven't let me down. Now you just relax, and work on getting better. I'll be right here."
She's exhausted from telling her story, and her eyes close as she slips into an uneasy sleep. You lean over and kiss her forehead. Dr Fallon comes in and tells you they're moving her to ICU, and you'll have to go back to the waiting room. Helplessness wells up over you as you realize that despite all your efforts, you are now powerless in the fight to save your daughter's life. You sit in the waiting room for hours, until it's visiting hours again, and you can go see Gracie.
Somewhere in the long vacant hours, you call in to work, letting them know you'll be out for a while. You call your mother, to take care of Barbara. At some point, people come to sit with you, to keep you company. Somebody brings you food, and you eat a bite or two. There are other families in the waiting room, other people who have loved ones fighting for their lives, but you are all alone. Every fiber of your being is directed at willing Gracie to get better. The nurses tell you to go home, get some sleep.
"You won't do Gracie any good if you're in a bed right next to her," they say.
Like you could sleep.
Gracie's nasal tube is replaced by a mask. Another IV is started. She's placed on a catheter. Then a heart monitor. As you watch your daughter disappear in medical machinery, you know she's losing the battle against the infection. She's being ripped from you one tiny piece at a time.
And you can do nothing but watch, and hold her hand for an hour and a half twice a day.
She dies.
You're there with her, at the end. You hope for some last word, some last chance to tell her you love her, to beg her forgiveness for failing her, for not keeping her safe, but that moment never comes. And in the end it doesn't really matter, because you'll never forgive yourself anyway.
At Gracie's funeral, most of her old friends and teachers show up, including Mrs. Peters.
"I was just doing my job, doing what I thought was best for her..." Her voice trails off as you simply look at her. It wasn't her job; it was your job. She looks for something in your eyes, something she doesn't find, as she lets out a quiet moan and walks away.
Gracie's body is consigned to the earth, and one by one, the mourners all walk away. Eventually, you walk away as well. You have to move on. You have to be strong.
You have another daughter.
The above story is not true. Except that it is. As a father of three daughters, it is one of my worst nightmares, that other people can make decisions for my kids without consulting me, and that those decisions can cause irreparable harm.
Didn't diet, ate all my favorite foods, gained 4 pounds to 255.
Back on the plan as of this morning. Goal for next week, 253.
Usually, I hate being wrong. I work hard at this blog, and I try to put things together to get the best possible analysis. When I miss the mark, it's irritating.
Except for today.
Here's one time when I don't mind missing the mark. The Vols, almost without exception, looked good on Saturday as they took on the Gators and walked out of the Swamp with some new boots and an alligator handbag for Mrs. Fulmer. The defense was dominant; the offense was effective, and special teams did thier job.
Report Card
Quarterback: C+
When I said almost without exception, here's what I was referring to. Clausen's first half was a complete disaster, and only a fluke Hail Mary put the Vols ahead at halftime. The only ice on the Iceman in the first half was on his hands as he consistently overthrew receivers, and launched one duck that hung in the air so long, I would have had time to drive down from Tennessee and catch it. IN the second half, the other Casey showed up. You know, the one who rifled passes directly on target; the one who checked into the right plays at the line of scrimmage, keeping the Gator defense guessing; the one who could actually move in the pocket, and run for a few yards when needed.
If only that guy would show up more often.
Running Backs: B+
When Cedric Houston went down with a hip injury, Jabari Davis showed the world why I like him so much. On his 9 yd TD run, Davis picked his way through defenders then blasted into the end zone, showing power, vision, and speed.
Receivers: A
Despite some errant passes from Clausen in the first half, the receivers caught nearly every catchable ball throughtout the game, including a nnifty adjustment by Bret Smith who turned an off target pass from Clausen into a 57 yard pickup that nearly went in for a score. The Gators doubled James Banks most of the afternoon, which allowed Jayson Swain to catch 4 passes for 54 yards. The Vols continued to spread the wealth throughout the receiving corps with 7 Vols catching at least one ball. Opposing defenses are going to have a tough time deciding which Vol to key on.
Offensive Line: B-
The running game was slow getting started, and Clausen was harrassed on nearly every passing down, but that was more of a tribute to Florida's yound defensive front than a knock on the Vol offense. Surprisingly, the offensive line got stronger as the day went on, until in the 4th quarter, the Gator line looked whipped.
Defensive Line/Linebackers: A
Kevin Simon 16 tackles against a veteran offensive line. Gators held to 73 yards rushing, lost one fumble and gave up two sacks. Say no more. Except that for the first time in a long time, the front four were able to apply pressure without a blitz.
Defensive Secondary: B+
Tremendous improvement over the last game. The secondary gave up yards, but not points, and notched two interceptions.
Special Teams: A
Dustin Colquitt was out punted for the first time this season, not because he was off his game (49+yards per punt) but because Eric Wilbur had a phenomenal day. Returns were solid, as was coverage.
Coaching: B
49 yards in penalties is much better. Against Marshall, UT gave up that many yards in a single drive. Play selection, with the one quibble of the toss sweep in our own end of the field, was solid, balancing the pass and run, keeping the Vols 2 dimensional. The adjustments at half time were excellent, as the scoring differential showed.
Overall: A
There are individual areas for improvement for some players on the team, but they are more than compensated for by the sense of teamworl that hangs around the Vols this season. They are working together as a team, and that's a powerful force. They are showing steady improvement in all facets of the game, and are now a legitimate threat to win the SEC East, and maybe more. Next week, they face a tricky South Carolina team. As Fulmer said afte rthe game, how they handle this victory will go a long way towards showing what these guys are made of.
Earlier today, I posted a bit about Wesley Clark that was based on a piece by George Will. In that piece, Will accused Clark of claiming that the White House pressured him to say there was a link between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein.
From Will's column:
As Clark crisscrosses the country listening for a clamor for him ("I expect to have my decision made by Sept. 19," when he visits Iowa -- feel the suspense), he compounds the confusion that began when he said on June 15 that on 9/11 "I got a call at my home" saying that when he was to appear on CNN, "You've got to say this is connected" to Iraq. "It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over." But who exactly called Clark?July 1: "A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank." There is no such Canadian institution. Anyway, who "from the White House"? "I'm not going to go into those sources. . . . People told me things in confidence that I don't have any right to betray."
July 18: "No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11."
Will 's article makes it appear that at one point, Clark claimed that the White House pressured him to report a linkage, then later reneged on that claim.
But the truth is somewhat different. As reported by John Williams at Open Source, Will distorted the transcript:
Will reversed the order of Clark's statements! In the Russert interview, the "it" in the segment where Clark says "It came from the White House" refers to a "concerted effort ... to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein." But the way George Will orders it, "it" seems to refer to the call Clark says he received.This lexical twist lets George Will suggest that Clark's most famous story has changed a few times.
John supplies a link to the actual transcript which backs him up.
GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made.
It is clear that Will's manipulation of the transcript changed the meaning of Clark's remarks, creating an appearance of a flip-flop that simply did not occur. It's every bit as dishonest as anything Dowd has written. I expected better from Will.
As a follow up to my post on education below, I offer this link, to John Hawkins, who delves deeper into the numbers and asks some very good questions.
Richard Grasso started out making $80 per week 35 years ago as a clerk on the New York Stock Exchange. Wednesday he resigned his position as Chairman and Chief Executive of the Exchange under pressure from the Board of Directors.
Why?
He committed the unpardonable sin of accepting the compensation package offered to him by that same board a couple of years ago.
Shame on him!
They offered him an obscene amount of maoney, and the selfish little bugger took it. Of all the nerve!
Now, if you or I were in that same position, we'd know what to do, right. We'd reject the offer and demand to be paid less.
Yeah, sure we would.
The funniest part of this whole deal? He's forced to resign because somebody thinks he was being paid too much money, but after he resigns, he gets all of it anyway!
America! Gotta love it!
There's a lot of folks on the left who don't like President Bush's approach to foreign policy. They, along with many Europeans, call him a "cowboy", or a "gunslinger." They worry that the fate of the free world rests in the hands of a man who, in their opinion, is liable to start WWIII by some rash, ill-considered action.
Then we have General Wesley Clark, who nearly did start WWIII through a rash, ill-considered, action.
But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander."I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.
The Vols struggled with the Marshall passing attack, a fact which should concern Vol fans, since that attack is based on the Gator offense. The difference this week is that Florida has much better atheletes than Marshall. Unless Defensive Co-ordinator John Chavis has some real magic up his sleeve, I predict a very long afternoon for a Vol secondary that gave up 3 touchdowns and 294 yards to Marshall. To make matters worse, this year's defense, like last year's, appears to be unable to get pressure on the QB with just the front four. Once again, LBs and DBs lead the team in tackles and sacks, indicating problems with the defensive line's ability to get penetration. Constantin Ritzmann is the only stand-out lineman with 4 tackles, 4 assists, and 2 sacks. A steady diet of blitzes could spell doom for a secondary left in man to man coverage. Ingle Martin is the highest rated passer in the SEC, which may not be as good as it sounds since he built those stats against lesser opponents, but, by the same token, Clausen only ranks 8th in passing efficiency, also against weaker opponents. And he's shown he can run the ball, which will also test a Vol defense that let Stan Hill out of the box several times.
On the other side of the ball, UT's offense has shown flashes of improvement, but is still dogged by the penalties and inconsistencies that killed them last season. The offensive line has improved tremendously, and the return of Cedric Houston gives the Vols a credible running threat, but most defenses will put 8 guys in the box and try to force Clausen to beat them with his arm. Last year, that strategy worked well, as UT lacked a standout wide receiver. This year that may prove more difficult, as the Vols have some proven threats, and some real speed. The problem, as always, is with the quarterback. Can he get the ball to his receivers consistently enough to get the Gator defense to back off, opening up the running game?
The final challenge for the Vols will be discipline. NO STUPID PENALTIES!
If Clausen has a good game, the Gator defense can be burned, as shown by Miami's second half comeback. Also, the Vols look good on special teams, which has always been key in this matchup. But it won't be enough.
Gators 31 Vols 27
I finally got my first real flamer! The odd thing is where it came from. I mean, here, I've been hitting heavy issues, making sure to speak out on controversies, tweaking a major figure on the nose from time to time, but I got mostly tepid responses.
I should have known if I wanted to provoke a real reaction, I would have to move from meaningless issues like politics, morality, war, plague, and other minor matters to something that really counts:
Little League Football.
What you are about to read came from the website I set up for the kids on the involved in Northview Sports. It's their page.
YOUR LEAGUE IS A JOKE LMFAO , THE COACHS MATT AND GREG ONLY COACH BECAUSE THEY WANT THERE SONS TO PLAY WICH ISNT RIGHT TO THE OTHER KIDS . I HAVE SEEN GREG AND MATT ABUSE THERE COACHING , SOON IT WILL CATCH UP TO THEM . ALL I HOPE IS THAT THEY GO TO CHURCH , BECAUSE TO ONLY COACH BECAUSE THERE KIDS ARE PLAYING AND LETTING THEM PLAY . THE OTHERS KIDS WHO ARE BETTER OR JUST AS GOOD AS THERE SONS OUR THERE CHEATING THEM OUT OF THE GAME CALLED FOOTBALL RUN AND CRY OVER NOT GETTING A COACHING JOB IN SEVIERVILLE SHOWS YOUR LEAGUE AND COACHS ARE NOTHING BUT LIARS AND IN IT FOR YOUR OWN GOOD AND NOT FOR THE KIDS . GREG COACHED FOR FEW YEARS THEN LEFT AFTER HIS SON MOVED UP THEN COME BACK WHEN YOUNGER SON PLAYED AFTER THIS ONE HE WILL LEAVE THE LEAGUE AND LEAVE YOUR LEAGUE HANGING AND DROP HEAD STRAIGHT TO THE BOTTOM LIKE HE DID BEFORE . IVE SEEN HIM AROUND OTHER SPORTS AND HES JUST AS BAD , A SORE LOSER HE IS BY SEEING IT WITH MY OWN EYES THATS MY PERSONAL OPINION . THE GUYS A POOR EXCUSE FOR A MAN . I HEAR PARENTS ALL THE TIME CRYING BECAUSE YOU WONT LET THERE KIDS PLAY AND YET YA LET YOUR SONS PLAY HM PROMISE THEM TO PLAY THEM IF THEY LEAVE OTHER LEAGUE LMFAO ITS THE KIDS WHO LOSE OUT YA GOOFBALLS NOT THE PARENTS . THINK WHAT YA DOING YOUR HURTTING THE KIDS IT WILL BE IN THE NEWS PAPER SOON THEN WHAT YA GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT . PLEASE READ THE MOUNTAIN PRESS WITH IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS AS PARENTS COME TO ME AND SPOKE UP ABOUT YOUR PROMISE TO PLAY THEM AND LIE TO THERE PARENTS AND THERE SONS , YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOUR SELVES ! GOD WILL SEE THAT BEEING A LIAR WILL HAUNT YOU FOREVER . YOU CANT COACH YOUR KIDS WHEN THERE IN MIDDLE SCHOOL LMFAO SO THINK ABOUT IT OR HIGH SCHOOL DUH IT WILL BITE YA PLUS YA KIDS A MIDGET LMFAO !
Now, I can understand a parent getting upset; I can even understand venting your frustrations on the Coach. What I can't understand is doing so in a forum for the kids, and throwing in a gratuitous slam at the Coach's son (who also happens to be my nephew. Bad Move, Bozo!) to boot.
What was probably most surprising is the guy left his real e-mail address and his real name. I responded politely to the guy, asked him to vent his spleen in a more appropriate forum, and warned him that I would ban his IP address fro continued abuse of the comments.
He replied with a denial and a threat. So I banned him.
To protect myself from his threat, I did a little investigation. I used Yahoo people finder, typed in his name and got his address and phone number. Then I got a little more creative. He used an AOL e-mail address, so I typed his handle in to the AOL search engine and got a hit.
From an "alternative lifestyles" dating service. The title of the ad was "No Pain, No Pleasure."
Folks, if you're going to dabble in that kind of stuff, it's probably a good idea to use a different handle than the one you use to flame a youth league football coach, particularly if you sign your real name to the flame.
Six months before, the world had cheered as the statues of the dictator came crashing down. The Americans had seemed heroic. But now things were going very badly. The occupation was chaotic, the American soldiers were hated and they were facing threats from the surviving supporters of the dictator, whose whereabouts were uncertain.Washington seemed unwilling to pay the enormous bill for reconstruction, and the president didn't appear to have any kind of workable plan to manage the transition to democracy. European allies, distrustful of the arrogant American outlook, were wary of co-operating. To many, it looked like the victory had been betrayed, since the American values of democracy, equality and well-being seemed unlikely ever to emerge.
Iraq in 2003? Nope, Germany in 1945
As I've said earlier, we did it before, and we'll do it again, but it won't be done by next Thursday, or the week after that.You want to gripe about the lack of progress, fine. Be sure to present ideas on what to do differently, and how to accomplish your plans.
Otherwise you're just annoying those who are trying to get the job done.
(Hat tip again to Jim Miller, who is now going on the blog roll)
The followng post up to the update, is untrue. It was based on a column by George Will, which manipulated a quote to suggest that Wesley Clark lied.
"Wesley Clark tells it like it is. He's not afraid to stand up and tell the truth! He'll bring that atttitude to Washington when he's President, just you wait and see."
Actually, we don't have to wait.
On June 15, he says""I got a call at my home" saying that when he was to appear on CNN, "You've got to say this is connected" to Iraq. "It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over."
By July 1st, it's "A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank." and "I'm not going to go into those sources. . . . People told me things in confidence that I don't have any right to betray."
By July 18th: "No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11."
By Aug 25th: "a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He's very well connected to Israeli intelligence. . . . I haven't changed my position. There's no waffling on it. It's just as clear as could be."
He's right; it is as clear as can be. He lied.
(Hat tip Jim Miller)
UPDATE: Well, there was a lie, but it doesn't appear to have come from Clark. In a sterling example of Dowdian manipulation, Will has doctored Clark's quote to create the appearance of a lie. Barry B. links to this piece from Open Source, which reveals how Will manipulated Clark's statement to create a false impression. The correct quote may have some ambiguity, but it is clear that Clark never claimed that he received a call from the White House, as the Will piece suggests.
Manipulation like that is reprehensible, and self defeating. With the internet, it will always come out.
Otherwise a statement like this would cost Ted Rall his job:
It's unfortunate that drivers must worry that their SUVs are being targeted by insulting stickers and Molotov cocktails, but one thing's for sure: It couldn't be happening to a more deserving group of people."
Yep, if you own an SUV, you deserve to have it firebombed, and you are a selfish, dangerous monster, and responsible for most of the things wrong with the world. For more details on the actions Rall speaks of so approvingly, read the LA Times piece.
Let's examine Rall's piece a little closer, and see what other idiocy spews forth.
Ecoterrorism expert Bron Taylor of the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, says that ELF believes "that ecosystems have an inherent worth that cannot be judged in relation to human needs, that human actions are bringing the earth toward mass extinctions, and that political action is insufficient to bring about the wholesale changes needed."
Taken at face value, most Americans agree with the "elves."
Really? Most Americans favor the use of ecoterrorism to promote a marginal agenda? I'd love to see a source on that. Rall references an LAT survey (without a link), but the bits he pulls out only backs up the importance people put on the environment, not support for ELF's terrorism. And it is terrorism, not vandalism. As Rall himself says:
The idea is to make SUVs as unfashionable, and as scary to own, as fur became after the PETA-inspired spray-paint attacks of the '80s.
The goal is to scare you away from pursuing an action that Elf, and by his approval, Rall, disapproves of. Sounds like terrorism to me.
The United States produces more greenhouse gases, both per capita and overall, than any other nation, making it largely responsible for climate change.
As I've pointed out before, the facts do not support his conclusion. Yes, we emit more so-called greenhouse gasses than anybody else, but, because of our vast expanses of green spaces, we absorb more than we emit. In fact, the US is a net absorber of greenhouse gasses. Europe, on the other hand, is the worst of the net emitters, as they have virtually no green spaces left, and are highly industrialized.
The environmental crisis is, hands down, the most important matter facing humanity today. Who cares about peace in the Middle East if the region is under water, stricken by famine or choked by dust storms
Let's rephrase the question: Who will care about global mean temperature 150 years from now if the world blows up in 4 years in a thermonuclear exchange triggered by a complete breakdown in the Middle East? Histrionics are rarely a good substitute for reasoned analysis, but it makes for good sloganeering for weak minds.
They're (SUV's) the sole reason we dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) to reduce greenhouse gases. SUVs have got to go.
Really? And you have quotes to back that up? And here I thought it was about the tremendous drain Kyoto would have placed on the US economy, the fact that Kyoto would not actually reduce global greenhouse emissions, and that some of the worst emitters, ie developing nations, would be exempted from compliance, that doomed the treaty. I guess that's what I get for actually reading the damned thing.
Finally, there's this:
In an ideal world, American consumers could be convinced to do the right thing through an appeal to logic with public service messages like the "What Would Jesus Drive?" TV campaign, but the kind of people who would buy a car that increases the risk to other motorists in an accident can't be reasoned with. They're selfish and stupid.
You can hear the sneer in his voice, dripping with condescension. If we don't know what's best for us, thenn by god, he and his allies will make sure we learn it.
What an ass.
I drive an SUV, and I enjoy the hell out of it. I do go off road from time to time, and have the dents and scratches to prove it. It's kept me on the road in snow and ice, hauled furniture and groceries, not to mention several kids, has 186,000 miles without any major repiars, and has in general been a great vehicle. It's primary use, however, is as a commuter vehicle, which I guess makes me selfish and stupid. Of course, my SUV gets 30 mpg, so maybe I'm not so stupid after all. But I am selfish. I worked for it, I paid for it, and I'll drive it. And if I decide to trade it in on an H2 (like I'm going to blow a year's pay on a car) then by god, I'll drive it as well.
(Hat tip to Right Wing News)
Isn't that what we keep hearing? I know I hear it from the left all the time. "We aren't spending enough! We need to raise more money! If we want world class schools and world class students, it's going to cost!"
There's a slight problem there, lefty. It seems we already spend more per child than anybody else in the world, and we're only getting fair to middlin' results.
Among more than 25 industrialized nations, no country spends more public and private money to educate each student than the United States, according to an annual review by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.But American 15-year-olds scored in the middle of the pack in math, reading and science in 2000, and the nation's high-school graduation rate was below the world average in 2001.
Why ever could that be, I wonder?
We are spending more already. The same article states that spending on education increased by 11 billiob dollars during the Bush Presidency. Why aren't we seeing better performance?
Could it be that simply throwing money at a problem does not actually solve the problem? Could it be that we actually need a plan, you know, that thing where you define the problem, design a solution, and set benchmarks to measure your progress towards achieving that solution?
Naah, we need more classrooms, more psych evals for the kids, more programs to boost their self esteem.
Have you heard Blix's latest theory on where the WMD are? It's a doozy, let me tell you!
Blix, who spent three years searching for Iraqi chemical, biological and ballistic missiles as head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, said Iraq might have tried to fool the United States into believing it had weapons of mass destruction over the years in order to deter attack."I mean, you can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog,' without having a dog," he said from his home in Sweden.
This explanation makes sense...if you're insanely stupid. Or if you're counting on business as usual with the UN.
Think about it.
After the Gulf War, the UN said "We'll stop attacking you if you disarm, and prove to us that you have disarmed."
Iraq said, "OK, we'll disarm. Just stop hurting us."
Meanwhile Saddam hatches this secret plot.
"Here's what we'll do guys. We'll throw away all of our weapons, see, but we won't let the UN verify that we've thrown them all away. That way we'll be in compliance, but they won't know it, so they won't dare attack us. Besides, the UN is a bunch of old women anyway. They won't do anything, and if the Great Satan tries to stir up the pot, our partners in France and Germany will reign them in"
At this point, you have to imagine that somebody spoke up and said," But, and forgive me for questioning you, Most Revered and Feared Leader of Our People, if the Allies don't believe we have disarmed, and they come to force us to disarm, we will not be able to fight back, because we have disarmed!"
"Silence you dog! I tell you they have no will to fight. They will talk endlessly and do nothing! Ali, eliminate this infidel who dares question my brilliance!"
And so the plan was hatched. It might actually have worked; in fact it was working right up until bin Laden and his murderous scum pissed us off. That changed the rules of the game in mid hand, but Hussein was trapped in his bluff. He held when he should have folded.
So, it is conceivable that Hussein no longer had any weapons of mass destruction; he was just pretending he did. Does this mean that the US and its coalition shoudn't have moved on him? Well, let me ask you this. You're in a bad neighborhood, and a guy walk up behind you and sticks a gun in your back and demands your wallet. Do you give it to him, or do you assume it's just his finger and say "Hell No!" (Uncle, assume you're not carrying, or he's got the drop on you)?
My oldest son called me this morning with a bad sore throat and an earache. He'd been suffering through the pain for a cou0ple of days, trying to get through it, but it just kept getting worse until he had to call me.
I drove up to get him in Johnson City, and set off to find a walk-in Urgent Care clinic. I didn't want to go to an Emergency Room because, well, it wasn't an emergency, but I had called my family doctor, and they couldn't get him in until Friday, so I was looking for another option.
You won't believe what I found.
A buddy at work told me that he had heard about a clinic that had opened up inside a grocery store.
Yep, you read that right, a grocery store.
I checked it out, and sure enough, tucked inside the Food City on South Roan St. was a small medical clinic run by a Physician's Assistant and a Nurse Practitioner. For those not familiar with those terms, these are qualified medical personnel who are trained and certified to treat patients, including writing prescriptions for antibiotics or other meds. They are a wonderful mix of nurse and doctor, blending the strength of both positions.
Anyway, the clinic is on a walk in basis and that's exactly what we did. I filled out about 5 minutes worth of paperwork, and my son was seen immediately. 25 minutes later, we left the store with a filled prescription. Try that at an emergency room or any other urgent care facility.
here's the kicker. They don't file insurance which cuts way down on their paperwork, thus eliminating a ton of overhead. As a result, an office visit costs $30.00
Period.
Talk about a win/win solution! Food City leases the space out at a very reduced rate, providing a needed service which is sure to bring more customers in; the Clinic gets a low lease, which further reduces overhead, allowing the practitioners to make a good wage, while costs to the patient are kept very low. And you can pick up a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and 2 porterhouse steaks (on sale this week for $3.99 lb) without making another stop.
Let's see a government run health plan that can do that!
My daughter (13) asked me today if I had any Aretha Franklin music. I'm not sure where she heard it, but she really likes the song "Chain of Fools."
Being a big Motown fan, of course I have some Aretha in my collection, so I pulled out the cases and started looking.
While diving through cassettes that haven't seen the light of day in years, I came across a lot of old Motown favorites like the Temptations, the Four Tops, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, and the Supremes. I started putting these tapes on and listening to the music and my daughter loved it! She sat and watched me sing all four parts to "I Can't Get Next to You," and we had a blast!
See, that's the thing about real music as opposed to the predigested pap spewed out by the corporate pimps and their accomodating whores.
It lasts.
Never did find my Aretha tapes, though. Oh well, I wanted to get them on CD anyway!
How's this for confusing?
Lobbyist and political consultant James Carville is in a TV show on HBO, playing a lobbyist/political consultant named James Carville, who advises presidential candidates for the primaries. In the show, his partner in the consulting firm is his wife, played by Mary Matelin, his wife and consulting partner in real life.
These Hollywood types are so creative, aren't they?
In the pilot episode, Carville, the character, is advising a presidential candidate named Howard Dean, played by presidential candidate Howard Dean, in how to answer questions during a primary debate. Carville suggest the line "If the percentage of black folks in your state was determinative of your record on civil rights, Trent Lott would be Martin Luther King." Later in the episode, footage is aired of Dean, the character, using the line to general applause and laughter. Here's where it gets tricky. The footage came from the actual debate in which Dean, the candidate, participated with the other 8 democratic contenders.
So we have a fictitious line, generated by a fictitous consultant said by a fictitous candidate in a real debate. Or is it a real line offered by a real candidate in a fictitous debate?
Where's Michael Moore when you need him?
Jokes aside, this is simply "The War Room" meets "The West Wing." I guess they figure they can script real life, avoiding those inconvenient concepts of "truth" and "reality."
If you're an illegal immigrant, the cost of your vote is apparently a valid driver's license.
In a flip flop from a veto he issued last year, Gray Davis has signed a bill which will allow illegal aliens to get a valid California driver's license. All they need is a taxpayer ID number, which the IRS gives out freely, with no identity or background checks, and another form of ID, which includes the Mexican Consulate issued ID cards. In essence, now anybody can walk into a California office and emerge with a valid California Driver's license.
Think about that for a second.
What is the only ID you need to get a concealed carry permit?
To buy weapons?
To buy plane tickets?
To open a bank account?
To cash a check?
A Driver's License.
In an effort to save his job, Gray Davis has just thrown open the door to any terrorist who wants to operate in the US.
I blame the Republicans. After all, if they hadn't started the recall, Davis wouldn't have had to go so far to try and keep his job.
The Democratic Party is saved. No longer will they have to fear being ravaged by the Dean extremists, as General Wesley Clark USA, Ret. has joined the race for the Democratic nomination for President.
In a move echoing the Shwarzenegger campaign, Clark has been fairly quiet about what he actually stands for. We know he was against invading Iraq, although we don't know what he thinnks we should do now. We know he doesn't like a bad economy (Sharp guy, that General!), but we don't know what he would do about it, or what he would do differently from the other candidates.
We do know that Michael Moore supports his candidacy, which tells me all I really need to know about the General. But, in the interest of fairness, I decided to dig a little deeper. What does Clark stand for? What is his vision for America?
Clark on taxation:
The tax cuts weren’t fair… the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.
I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation.
I think the first requirement for a presidential candidate is a firm grasp of American ideals. Last time I checked, America was not founded on the principle of progressive taxation. In fact, the idea of a direct tax (income tax) was anathema to the Founding Fathers, and specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Taxes on trade ie, tariffs and sales taxes, were supposed to fund the government. This was specifically intended to limit the size and growth of the federal government.
Clark believes a progressive income tax was a founding principle of this country.
The tax cuts weren’t fair… the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more.
Socialism at it's finest! "To each according to his needs..."
Clark believes that because they need the money, the gov't should design its tax policy to make sure they get the money, even if they don't pay taxes!
Clark on the Environment
Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it's just getting started as China and India modernize.
OK, add scientific illiteracy and logical fallacies to Clark's list of qualifications. The glaciers disappearance does indicate that the earth is warming. It does not indicate that human activity has anything to do with it. Additionally, glaciers are nowhere near their minimums of the Middle Ages, at which time Greenland actually lived up to its name.
Clark believes human activities are the primary cause of global warming.
Clark on Iraq
"Everything I said about Iraq has turned out to be correct," the retired Army general averred in a telephone interview several days ago. He rattled off the concerns he voiced before the invasion: Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to the United States; it wasn't directly linked to the war on terrorism; an invasion might make the terrorism problem worse; there wasn't an international coalition supporting the war; America had other ways to contain Saddam Hussein.
Each of those concerns has been demonstrably proven to be false. Iraq has been definitively linked to terrorism, particularly the first attack on the WTC
We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
As for the risk of terrorism increasing since the war, I simply point out that no US targets have been hit, in marked contrast to the years leading up to 9/11. An undeniable escalation of terrorist activity on US soil and against US targets has been halted in its tracks.
But Clark believes we're at a higher risk.
Enough already!
The only reason Clark is in the race is that some dems have finally realized that it isn't the economy this time, its the security of the US that's at stake, and that the voters fully appreciate that fact. They're hoping that Clark can sway the moderates by running as a strong national security candidate, and appease rabid fringe of the party with his Socialist ideology.
And they may be right. Given that he'll have the Clinton machine backing him, he stands an excellent chance of winning the nomination. But will that give him the Presidency? Probably not. By and large, people are happy with the job Bush is doing, and, barring some disastrous turn in the Middle East, will favor staying with the incumbent. But at least the dems will have salvaged their parties relevancy by avoiding a Dean campaign which would virtually annihilate the dems as a political force for a generation.
The 9th has decided to intervene in California's recall, and overrule the State Constitution. Not a really big surprise since the 9th has issued some of the most boneheaded opinions in history, but will the SCOTUS overrule?
I doubt it very much.
Looking at it from a political standpoint, since it is clear that the law no longer counts, there's no upside for the SCOTUS to get involved, and a major downside.
Why don't I think the law counts? Because this decision by the Ninth is simply a continuation of the liberal courts ignoring the law in favor of their ideology. As an example, remember the Nevada State Supreme Court ruling that when the people of Nevada voted to require a 2/3 majority to approve a tax increase, they didn't really mean it. The court went on to enable a liberal governor to force a monumental tax increase down the throats of the people of his state.
So much for government by the people. Now it's government of the people, by the courts, for the liberals.
UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
I am unclean! Forgive me my brothers and sisters in Atkins! I have fallen from the pure path. I have lain with the harlot who's mouth tastes of honey, and who's flesh is sweet. I have faltered in my resolve, and failed to resist when temptation reared it's sumptuous head. How may I redeem myself? I was in a den of sin, confident of my righteousness, when the serpent tempted me. I ordered a holy meal, filet in a bordeaux-portobello mushroom sauce(9 carbs), and all was well.
And then she asked "Baked potato, or sweet potato?"
I tried to resist, O my brothers and sisters, with all of my might, but the temptation was too much and I succumbed.
"Baked, and loaded," I replied.
She smiled in triumph, then added to my damnation, bring oven fresh rolls along with my salad (Caesar dressing 5 carbs).
The bread smelled wonderful, and I did take and eat of it.
And it was good!
Then I did take some butter, and spread it across the bread, and the butter was infused with honey, and I ate it anyway.
And it was good!
Then the potato came, steaming hot, with butter. sourcream, bacon, and chives, and I did eat it, all of it, and it too was good!
Then, to complete my damnation, the serpent came again, and tempted me with dessert. But, my brothers and sisters in Atkins, the last shred of righteousness within me helf strong and true, and I refused the hot fudge sundae; I passed on the pecan pie ala mode; I said no to the peanut butter brownie pie.
Bent, but not broken, I left the den of iniquity. I resolved not to allow myself to fall into such a terrible trap again; failing to resist temptation, I would avoid it. And if I should falter, if I should yield, I would move on, and resume eating in righteousness, not allowing my momentary lapse to end my devotion.
Hey, if I'm going to be called a cultist, I might as well sling the lingo, right?
OK, seriously, I'm still on track, weighing in this morning at 252. I missed the goal of 251, but I'm still dropping, even with my indulgence the night before. The thing to remember, as I said above, is that you can't allow a lapse to make you quit the whole thing. Eating 1 high carb meal won't totally derail your diet unless you allow it to. It may slow your progress, particualrly if you eat enough to drop you out of ketosis, but two days later, you can be back on track and making progress.
Goal for next week: 249
It looks like Gen. Wesley Clark is going to run for President.
He's told friends he's leaning strongly toward entering the contest, he's contacted potential campaign advisers, and he's asked for political advice from many party veterans. The 58-year-old former NATO (search) commander could shake up the crowded field.Supporters say they've gotten pledges for more than $1 million if Clark enters. With just four months before the first votes are cast, though, Clark would be far behind some of the other candidates in organizing his campaign, raising money and building support in the early states. His earliest allies would be from former President Clinton's Arkansas-based political network.
With the Clinton era dream team behind him, lack of money would be no problem; the Chinese are always ready to lend a helping hand to their friends.
Clark has the opportunity to blow the field away. The primary season is 4 months away, and as I noted earlier, most dems don't even know who is running. The injection of Clark into the mix gives dems a chance to wake up the base and get them involved. If Clark can position himself as to the right of Dean (not too hard; Stalin was to the right of Dean), anti war but pro American (a little tougher, but he may be able to pull it off with his resume), and can articulate a sound National Defense policy (tough, since the energized dem base reject the need for one) he just may steal the nomination, and give Bush a very tough race.
Of course, these are some very big "ifs." It's easy to look good before you run; its looking good while you're running that's tough.
One thing's for certain; the primary just got a lot more interesting.
Remember the flap about renaming "French Fries" as "Freedom Fries" as a protest against france's opposition to the War in Iraq? We were told it was silly to make such a meaningless gesture, that it was childish in the extreme.
Except now it isn't anymore. The EU wants to trademark regional names to protect them from global exploitation. Names like Roquefort, Champagne, Bordeaux, and Rioja. Instead of calling them "french fries", we'll have to call them "potatoes sliced lengthwise twice and dipped in hot oil." Unless of course they come from France.
Roquefort dressing will have to be called "Moldy Cheese Dressing." Swiss cheese from Wisconsin will be called "hard white aromatic cheese with fermentation holes, resembling a food product from Switzerland, but not affiliated with that country in any way."
It doesn't fall trippingly from the tongue, does it?
Imagine if this silliness were to spread. Campbell's would have to rename their New England Clam Chowder to "The Clam CHowder that doesn't have tomato in it." Yankee pot roast could no longer be served in the South, and Southern Fried Chicken could no longer be enjoys north of the Mason Dixon line.
I don't even want to think about what the new names for Bologna and Vienna Sausages would be.
I've mentioned before that the problem in America with poverty is that the definition is too high, and it comes from a lack of global perspective. I've seen other countries, like Brazil, where poverty is real. People live in cardboard cities that cover acres of countryside. Human waste runs down the center of the path, and the filth is indescribable. How can we apply the same word to them that we apply to a single mother living in a houseing project, making $12,000?
To get a better feel for what I'm talking about, go to the Global Rich List and type in your yearly income. Our hypothetical mom is wealthier than 5.3 billion people, residing comfortably within the top 12% in the world.
Now, this comparison is very simple, and neglects things like relative costs of living, but even so, it is an eye opening reminder of exactly how wealthy we are in the US.
BMI is suing a bar in Indiana for holding karaoke contests without paying a license fee.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, Broadcast Music Inc. alleges an eastside bar violated copyright laws by hosting karaoke and live music shows without paying licensing fees to use popular songs.New York-based BMI is a performance rights organization that collects license fees on behalf of songwriters when their music is played on radio, TV, the Internet, or is performed publicly.
First, the music industry places marketing ahead of the music, resulting in bland mediocrity, and foist that onto the listening audience. Then, they fix prices so they can overcharge people for their crap. Next, instead of embracing the new distribution system of the Internet, they try to cling to the dark ages and their incestuous distribution system. Then, they sue kids who, rather than spend $18 to get the one decent song on the album, download it instead. Now they're going after the bars, where people actually get to hear live music, that might actually inspire them to go out and plunk down some cash for a new CD.
Now I can understand paying a license for a live band. The songwriter needs to get something for his work. But on karaoke night, there are no bands, just a CD that the bar owner has already purchased. Why should he pay another fee just to play it?
This is a move which could seriously reduce the venues for small bands to build a following, which will make commercial music even dumber than it is now.
Missouri has joined the list of states which respects the 2nd Amendment and authorized concealed carry permits for its citizens.
Yeah I know, big deal. We've heard it all before. But it's getting worse.
The letter was on expensive-looking law firm stationery, and John Athan had no reason to doubt its authenticity.
So the New Jersey construction worker did what the letter asked: He signed a form agreeing to join a lawsuit in Washington state aimed at recovering overcharges in traffic fines, and he mailed it back in March.But the law firm was phony, created by police in Athan's hometown, Seattle. They didn't want Athan's signature, they wanted his DNA, the unique genetic code they lifted from the saliva he unwittingly provided by licking the return envelope.
Sting operations are bad enough, but this goes way over the line. In effect, through deception, the police have coerced Athan to unknowingly waive his right against self-incrimination.
In a sting, police set up the conditions for a suspect to commit a crime under their observations. They cannot encourage the suspect in any way. He must initiate the act in order for it to b