In honor of the impending end of blog vacation, I've rounded up some good stuff from other places (including some repeats)--
Alex Rodriguez- "F*** YOU! F*** YOU! F*** YOU!"
Jason Varitek- "F*** YOU! We don't throw at F***ing .275 hitters!"
jay nordlinger in NRO
"Before I left New York, I observed a crystallizing scene in Central Park: One female jogger encountered two others - whom she knew - and she said, "I'm going to see Fahrenheit 11" - that's what she said, "Fahrenheit 11" - "at 12:05," and the other two joggers squealed, "Ooh," and they all hugged. This is a funny moment in America, ladies and gentlemen."
From Allah:
It is a great affront to god that a woman so saucy should also be learned, but there is the problem with your women in a nutshell, America. Pro: They are looking good. Con: They attend school. You must accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.
Ted Kennedy
"...the only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush."
Really? Fade to photo of WTC Towers...
Victor Davis Hanson
Without historical perspective(about Iraq), thousands of pundits and politicians maneuver every 24-hours to "prove" that their shifting and contradictory positions, like millions of the American people's own rising and falling spirits, are in fact really consistent and principled. But mostly they are all just confused about Iraq and not sure whether we are emerging from a few skirmishes with a few weeks left to the armistice or firing away on Guadalcanal with three more years of mayhem to go."
Allah in the House
Osama and the mujahideen saw a website that claimed Jews are controlling the world with robots. The mujahideen were frightened, and declared jihad on robots: The intifada against Jew robots continues apace this morning, kufr. Three more Zionist vending machines and 11 ATMs have been liquidated by shahids in glorious martyrdom operations.
via Jay Nordlinger
'the author discusses the accusation that Schwarzenegger is anti-semantic . . .'
Tom Daschle
"[Americans] wonder how we can build new schools in Iraq, while so many American schools are crumbling?"
Really? Is it the mortar which is crumbling in American schools? Is it a money problem?
Iraqi blogger Firas Georges
"What may back up my criteria is what is going on in the ISX (Iraq Stock eXchange). Things there are more than good, its terrifying good. Nobody expected to close deals in one day with the same value of what he used to close in three months work, and investors are trying to find themselves a broker who isn’t so occupied with deals. "
-Roger L. Simon
Deep down (the Democrats) are saying the War on Terror was a bad thing because "we didn't do it."
Jamie Lee Curtis' exasperated speech to Kevin Kline's Otto, in A Fish Called Wanda:
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central teaching of Buddhism is not 'Every man for himself.' The London Underground is not a political movement. These are mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."
David Frum II
"The Democrats are not well served by the media bias in their favor. [...] (they) suffer from the same problem as ultimately felled Saddam Hussein: They cannot trust their (media) servants to report the truth. "
Iraqi blogger Alaa-
You are indeed falling prey to the Media. [...] we, who are in the middle of it all, see a definite improvement in the overall security situation [...] In fact, we expected much worse. The enemy has no agenda, no clear political objective, he is just desperately striking left and right and committing more and more terrible atrocities that will only increase the hatred and repulsion against him; while the offensive against him by the patriotic Iraqis is gaining momentum. The majority are going to get stronger and stronger, and this is already observable in the new security formations. We are in the thick of it and don't feel discouraged at all.
This chart contrasts the number of stories on Joe Wilson before and after both the Senate Intelligence Report and the 9/11 Commission Report outed him as a liar.
Outlet..................Wilson Before....Wilson After
CBS................................30...................0
NBC...............................40...................1
ABC...............................18....................1
Washington Post............96...................2
New York Times............70...................3
Los Angeles Times.........48...................2
-Howard Kurtz via Virginia Postrel
"Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he 'didn't want to see any stories' quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used."
Victor Davis Hanson-
Email Question: What would constitute "victory" for our enemy? Were you in their shoes, what would be your goal? How would you define victory and then remain victorious?
Hanson: An enemy victory in Iraq is something most likely to be a government of jihadists, whether Sunnis or Shiites, like Iran. An agenda of such a state?
>Get your hands on billions of petrodollars.
>Form a loose alliance with Iran and understandings with Syria.
>Undermine the Gulf States.
>Follow the Iranian/Libyan model of nuclear acquisition.
>Daily threaten Israel.
>Make the Europeans sell whatever you want, through a mixture of oil blackmail and loose talks about missiles, nukes, and launching ranges.
So, if they could turn Iraq into a Taliban-like badlands first, and a petrofueled theocracy second, then the rest would be easier. There are only two ways for Islamist governments now to threaten us: transform their country into terrorist havens (Afghanistan) or use petrol-dollars to buy nukes (Iran). Otherwise they are about as relevant as the Sudan or Somalia.
LaShawn Barber- the clear-thinking, the beloved-
"Dealing with race discrimination, perceived or otherwise, is secondary to individual accountability."
via Jay Nordlinger
Pine Bluff. Black History Month. Come to school as famous African-American. My co-worker's kid was told to come as Tina Turner. My co-worker informed the teacher that her child would come as Condoleezza Rice instead. The teacher refused to allow it, on grounds that Rice 'is for white people.'
Roger L. Simon
"I will admit that we optimists have been wrong about 98 percent of the time and that, on the surface, we are nitwits.(Hey, I like Kafka too.) But I submit that we are happier in our idiocy. "
Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah--
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
Patton--
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
"Remember the poet. Audace. Audace."
Frederick the Great--
"To defend everything is to defend nothing."
Mona Charen
"Is it really arrogance to believe that the system and the culture we've inherited is superior to others? Or is it ingratitude to deny it?"
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Observations Loosely Related to Part I
1) We're at war. Any person who understands this has no quarrel with "with us or against us." Any person who doesn't understand this doesn't need to be governing our nation.
2) Bush is riding an excellent streak of political and diplomatic success. He is perfectly positioned to achieve a blowout electoral victory in November. Iraq is well-positioned to be a historic democratic success. The Palestinians are more and more disgusted with Arafat. During Bush's term, diplomatic progress has been made in critical areas such as Russia, Pakistan, Libya, and North Korea. Over 90 nations aided the effort in Iraq.
3) John Kerry is not "suave" in any way that gets any positive thing accomplished. John Kerry is "suave" in the self-aggrandizing fashion of an arrogant and dense snob.
Update
Actually, to this point Bush has performed like one of the great politicians and great American Presidents in history. From the gubernatorial defeat of popular Ann Richards, to the Presidential campaign, the tax cuts, the mid-term Congressional elections, the liberation of 50 million people, the capitulation of Ghaddaffi, the discovery and break-up of Khan's international nuclear black market, the diplomatic successes mentioned above, and the rebound of the economy and the job market from the recession he inherited, Bush is on a historic run of political success. Listening to the yelps of outrage, it's pretty funny to think this is what one of the great Presidencies in history looks like!
2) Bush is riding an excellent streak of political and diplomatic success. He is perfectly positioned to achieve a blowout electoral victory in November. Iraq is well-positioned to be a historic democratic success. The Palestinians are more and more disgusted with Arafat. During Bush's term, diplomatic progress has been made in critical areas such as Russia, Pakistan, Libya, and North Korea. Over 90 nations aided the effort in Iraq.
3) John Kerry is not "suave" in any way that gets any positive thing accomplished. John Kerry is "suave" in the self-aggrandizing fashion of an arrogant and dense snob.
Update
Actually, to this point Bush has performed like one of the great politicians and great American Presidents in history. From the gubernatorial defeat of popular Ann Richards, to the Presidential campaign, the tax cuts, the mid-term Congressional elections, the liberation of 50 million people, the capitulation of Ghaddaffi, the discovery and break-up of Khan's international nuclear black market, the diplomatic successes mentioned above, and the rebound of the economy and the job market from the recession he inherited, Bush is on a historic run of political success. Listening to the yelps of outrage, it's pretty funny to think this is what one of the great Presidencies in history looks like!
Friday, July 23, 2004
Part I- The Straw Man of "Presidential Style"
There's an argument that President Bush's international style is too arrogant and inflexible, thus creating hard feelings, and leading to less economic and security cooperation with other nations.
The real argument is not about style, it's about policy. Were certain policy goals worth the risk of angering certain other nations? Any international hard feelings were spawned by policy disagreement, as in "If you disagree with me you are inflexible and polarizing."
"Bush's style" is a straw man. An argument about policy can morph into a separate argument about style, with the style winner hoping to declare proxy victory in the policy argument, even though the policy argument has not actually been resolved. It's sometimes hard to see this, whether you are the morpher or the morphee, so to speak. It was a long time before I saw the fallaciouness of the "style" argument.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The straw-man rhetorical technique [...] declaring one argument's conclusion to be wrong because of flaws in another argument.
When Senator Kerry says he would "reestablish credibility in the rest of the world," he's making a straw man argument about style. Kerry hopes to win the straw man argument and go on to declare victory in the policy argument.
Update 7/26/04
Andrew Sullivan in The Sunday Times of London- "The argument Kerry must make is that he can continue the substance of the war, but without Bush's polarizing recklessness."
"Continue the substance of the war" is code language for discontinuing large portions of the current war policy. Sullivan is trying to win a policy argument without arguing policy. He's setting up Bush's leadership style as a straw man. The real argument is about policy. If Bush's policy equated to police action, his current critics would not accuse him of "polarizing recklessness." Style is a straw man. Policy is what Sullivan is not addressing.
The real argument is not about style, it's about policy. Were certain policy goals worth the risk of angering certain other nations? Any international hard feelings were spawned by policy disagreement, as in "If you disagree with me you are inflexible and polarizing."
"Bush's style" is a straw man. An argument about policy can morph into a separate argument about style, with the style winner hoping to declare proxy victory in the policy argument, even though the policy argument has not actually been resolved. It's sometimes hard to see this, whether you are the morpher or the morphee, so to speak. It was a long time before I saw the fallaciouness of the "style" argument.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The straw-man rhetorical technique [...] declaring one argument's conclusion to be wrong because of flaws in another argument.
When Senator Kerry says he would "reestablish credibility in the rest of the world," he's making a straw man argument about style. Kerry hopes to win the straw man argument and go on to declare victory in the policy argument.
Update 7/26/04
Andrew Sullivan in The Sunday Times of London- "The argument Kerry must make is that he can continue the substance of the war, but without Bush's polarizing recklessness."
"Continue the substance of the war" is code language for discontinuing large portions of the current war policy. Sullivan is trying to win a policy argument without arguing policy. He's setting up Bush's leadership style as a straw man. The real argument is about policy. If Bush's policy equated to police action, his current critics would not accuse him of "polarizing recklessness." Style is a straw man. Policy is what Sullivan is not addressing.
Friday, June 18, 2004
Honorable Sports Play-
(Update: Steven Den Beste has written a post about this.)
Here's an ethical dilemma I've been idly pondering. I don't know the answer to the dilemma, and am seeking input-
Imagine your teenager is preparing to play high school sports. He or she will encounter sports opponents who will grab and hold them when the referees are not looking. When the referees are looking, the opponents will exaggerate or fake their reactive movements, acting as if your child has committed a foul against them. How do you teach your child to ethically respond to such tactics? What constitutes honorable play in a sports game which is officiated by referees or umpires?
I ran across a Donald Sensing post about speeding and sin and Immanuel Kant and duty. I excerpted specific parts in this post, so they could be referenced in our current discussion-
Kant wrote that the primary ethical imperative is, "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Put another way: Do that which- if everyone did it- would strengthen community and promote justice.
One may argue that those who speed believe faster speed limits are justified, and they are "willing" that faster speed limits become universal law. They are neither weakening community nor promoting injustice. Keeping this in mind, I can think of three distinct approaches to honorable play in a refereed game:
1. Follow the rules as written in the rulebook.
2. Follow "the spirit of the rules." Follow the rules as you believe the referees intend to enforce them for that game, and as you can will that the rules should be universally interpreted. Note that every umpire has their own definition of the strike zone, and every basketball referee has their own definition of charging and blocking. Use those definitions to gain competitive advantage.
3. Consider the presence of the referees to be a competitive circumstance of the game. Take every possible advantage of their lack of omnipotence and their imperfect human judgment- just as you would for every other competitive circumstance in the game. Hide and disguise actions which the referees would otherwise call a foul if they could see them being committed. At opportune moments, act as if the opponent is committing a foul, and exaggerate or fake your reactive movement in hopes of inducing the referees to call a foul on your opponent.
Many players on high school playing fields will be following the third course of action. If your child does not follow that course of action, he or she will be increasing the likelihood of being defeated on the scoreboard. I doubt Magic Johnson or Larry Bird could've ever won a championship without treating the referees as competitive circumstances to be exploited to the advantage of Magic and Larry. Were Magic Johnson and Larry Bird playing dishonorably?
A participant could "will that players should universally consider the referees to be a competitive circumstance of the game." To do so would create a particular kind of justice, insofar as the referees will not see every foul, and opposing sides will not be calling fouls on themselves. Both sides are therefore implicitly agreeing that the very human referees constitute a specific kind of competitive circumstance which becomes a part of that game. Some key assumptions: A)Every competitive circumstance ought to be exploited as much as possible. B)One cannot help it if one's opponent does not understand this calculus. Of course, the moment one's opponent begins calling fouls on himself, all assumptions are invalidated.
Taking a slightly different tack: If an opponent is exploiting the presence of the referee as much as possible, where's the injustice if your child responds in kind? This is the ground I currently occupy in this issue. I would want my child fighting back if their opponent tried to exploit the presence of the referees. However, I'm not confident my recommendation is the best parental advice. It's a type of middle ground, and middle ground is usually for the weak-spirited and the weak-minded.
The alternative argument would be that playing outside the spirit of the rules both creates injustice for one's opponent and entirely misses the purpose of the enterprise. The players are there to play a sport which is defined by rules. When one is acting outside the rules, one is not even playing the sport.
Also, there's something viscerally distasteful about playing outside the spirit of the rules. It can nag at one's conscience. Is your child's intention strictly to win on the scoreboard? Isn't the deeper purpose to do one's very best and to fairly play by the spirit of the rules? Isn't it sometimes preferable to be victorious in ways that do not show up on a scoreboard? Many of us have played against basketball opponents who fiercely grabbed and held onto our uniform shorts whenever they could get away with it. I've wondered if that isn't the very definition of when to "turn the other (buttocks) cheek" in sport?
I'm seeking input. I think this impacts Youth Sports as well as High School Sports. Most parents will want to encourage honorable play, but will not want to artificially hobble their children through misguided or narrow interpretations of what's honorable. I can't seem to get a handle on the various aspects of the issue, and have been thinking in circles for some months.
(Update: Steven Den Beste has written a post about this.)
Here's an ethical dilemma I've been idly pondering. I don't know the answer to the dilemma, and am seeking input-
Imagine your teenager is preparing to play high school sports. He or she will encounter sports opponents who will grab and hold them when the referees are not looking. When the referees are looking, the opponents will exaggerate or fake their reactive movements, acting as if your child has committed a foul against them. How do you teach your child to ethically respond to such tactics? What constitutes honorable play in a sports game which is officiated by referees or umpires?
I ran across a Donald Sensing post about speeding and sin and Immanuel Kant and duty. I excerpted specific parts in this post, so they could be referenced in our current discussion-
Kant wrote that the primary ethical imperative is, "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Put another way: Do that which- if everyone did it- would strengthen community and promote justice.
One may argue that those who speed believe faster speed limits are justified, and they are "willing" that faster speed limits become universal law. They are neither weakening community nor promoting injustice. Keeping this in mind, I can think of three distinct approaches to honorable play in a refereed game:
1. Follow the rules as written in the rulebook.
2. Follow "the spirit of the rules." Follow the rules as you believe the referees intend to enforce them for that game, and as you can will that the rules should be universally interpreted. Note that every umpire has their own definition of the strike zone, and every basketball referee has their own definition of charging and blocking. Use those definitions to gain competitive advantage.
3. Consider the presence of the referees to be a competitive circumstance of the game. Take every possible advantage of their lack of omnipotence and their imperfect human judgment- just as you would for every other competitive circumstance in the game. Hide and disguise actions which the referees would otherwise call a foul if they could see them being committed. At opportune moments, act as if the opponent is committing a foul, and exaggerate or fake your reactive movement in hopes of inducing the referees to call a foul on your opponent.
Many players on high school playing fields will be following the third course of action. If your child does not follow that course of action, he or she will be increasing the likelihood of being defeated on the scoreboard. I doubt Magic Johnson or Larry Bird could've ever won a championship without treating the referees as competitive circumstances to be exploited to the advantage of Magic and Larry. Were Magic Johnson and Larry Bird playing dishonorably?
A participant could "will that players should universally consider the referees to be a competitive circumstance of the game." To do so would create a particular kind of justice, insofar as the referees will not see every foul, and opposing sides will not be calling fouls on themselves. Both sides are therefore implicitly agreeing that the very human referees constitute a specific kind of competitive circumstance which becomes a part of that game. Some key assumptions: A)Every competitive circumstance ought to be exploited as much as possible. B)One cannot help it if one's opponent does not understand this calculus. Of course, the moment one's opponent begins calling fouls on himself, all assumptions are invalidated.
Taking a slightly different tack: If an opponent is exploiting the presence of the referee as much as possible, where's the injustice if your child responds in kind? This is the ground I currently occupy in this issue. I would want my child fighting back if their opponent tried to exploit the presence of the referees. However, I'm not confident my recommendation is the best parental advice. It's a type of middle ground, and middle ground is usually for the weak-spirited and the weak-minded.
The alternative argument would be that playing outside the spirit of the rules both creates injustice for one's opponent and entirely misses the purpose of the enterprise. The players are there to play a sport which is defined by rules. When one is acting outside the rules, one is not even playing the sport.
Also, there's something viscerally distasteful about playing outside the spirit of the rules. It can nag at one's conscience. Is your child's intention strictly to win on the scoreboard? Isn't the deeper purpose to do one's very best and to fairly play by the spirit of the rules? Isn't it sometimes preferable to be victorious in ways that do not show up on a scoreboard? Many of us have played against basketball opponents who fiercely grabbed and held onto our uniform shorts whenever they could get away with it. I've wondered if that isn't the very definition of when to "turn the other (buttocks) cheek" in sport?
I'm seeking input. I think this impacts Youth Sports as well as High School Sports. Most parents will want to encourage honorable play, but will not want to artificially hobble their children through misguided or narrow interpretations of what's honorable. I can't seem to get a handle on the various aspects of the issue, and have been thinking in circles for some months.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Lets look at this set of Nick Berg facts-
288 million American citizens.
One citizen's email password and email account end up being used by Zacarias Moussaoui, and the same citizen later is beheaded by Musab al-Zarqawi. From CBSNews.com-
U.S. officials say the FBI questioned Berg in 2002 after a computer password Berg used in college turned up in the possession of Zacarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative arrested shortly before 9/11 for his suspicious activity at a flight school in Minnesota.
The bureau had already dismissed the connection between Berg and Moussaoui as nothing more than a college student who had been careless about protecting his password.
But in the wake of Berg's gruesome murder, it becomes a stranger than fiction coincidence -- an American who inadvertently gave away his computer password to one notorious al Qaeda operative is later murdered by another notorious al Qaeda operative.
What are the odds that is a coincidence? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? Total number of American contractors in Iraq odds- 1 in 20,000? Lottery odds- 1 in 16 Million? DNA odds- 1 in 30 Million? Total American population odds- 1 in 288 million? Longer odds than that? I don't know how to figure the odds, but whatever the odds that the Berg/Moussaoui/Zarqawi connection was coincidence, they are certainly sky-high. If the Berg/Moussaoui/Zarqawi connection was coincidence, it is one of the amazing coincidences in all history.
Was Berg a spy working for either Al Qaeda or the Americans- or even a third party(Israelis)?
If he was a spy, he had a perfect cover- American entrepreneur working on Communications Towers. The job required (solo?) travel to various far-flung parts of Iraq. From CBSNews.com-
Two e-mails he sent to his family and friends show he traveled widely and unguarded throughout Iraq, an unsafe practice rarely done by Westerners.
Also, think about this- Berg allegedly worked atop Communications Towers. He was in perfect position to plant communications listening devices. Who knows if that happened, but suddenly the scenario doesn't seem ridiculous. From CBS-
Berg wrote about his experiences in trying to track down and later meet an in-law in the Mosul area.
Lets run through this list again-
--Berg/Mousaoui/Zarqawi connection.
--American traveling widely and unguarded throughout Iraq.
--Berg's family hates American military action ("Nicholas Berg died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld."- Michael Berg)
aaaaaannnndd-
--Alleged "in-law"(!!) in Mosul?!
Boiler plate spy novel cover story! And, if it's true, it raises a whole new set of questions.
These coincidences are starting to add up! Add this final bit to the story, again from CBSNews.com-
Officials said the U.S. government warned Berg to leave Iraq, and offered him a flight out of the country, a month before his grisly death. On April 10, four days after Berg was released from an Iraqi prison, an American diplomat offered to put him on a flight to Jordan, State Department spokeswoman Kelly Shannon said. But Berg told the diplomat he "planned to travel overland to Kuwait and would call (his) family from there," Shannon said.
Michael Berg, said that although his son wanted to leave Iraq, he refused the flight offer because he thought the travel to the airport would be too dangerous.
This last bit is completely nonsensical. Berg was warned to get out, and was offered a flight out. He declined, telling his parents
"travel to the airport is too dangerous(?!)."
Instead, he proposed travel to Kuwait?! Solo?! For the purpose of "safety?!" Roll eyes here. There's discrepant reporting as to whether Berg was in Mosul or Baghdad when the flight offer was made. Either way, it's nonsensical that he would travel to Kuwait for "safety" purposes.
Note this detail for future reference- Berg allegedly told the American Diplomat he would call his parents once he got to Kuwait. He apparently did call his parents, as his father gives a detail about why Berg didn't want to go to the airport. Was Berg abducted in Kuwait? How would you get a kidnap victim back across the Iraqi border? Bribe? Subterfuge? Or, maybe the "victim" was a willing travel companion?
It all might be a big series of coincidences. Maybe mitigating facts will come out. Maybe CBSNews.com has some of their facts wrong. But it doesn't look good for our old friend "coincidence." Vincent Bugliosi used to argue against coincidence alibis in this fashion-
The law doesn't say "beyond all doubt," it says "beyond a reasonable doubt." Maybe somewhere on some distant planet in some distant galaxy this set of coincidences could've occurred. But here on the Earth I live on, with brown dirt and green grass and Little Leaguers tossing the ball around, these types of coincidences just do not happen. Here in the real world, it simply does not happen that- on the very day your wife disappears- you go fishing in the ocean within a mile of where her body eventually washes up. That does not happen in the world you and I live in.
PS- This is off the cuff, but-
Fox News reports that Nick Berg and Zaccharias Mousaoui both attended the University of Oklahoma in Norman, OK. Mousaoui used Berg's email account while he was in Norman.
Nick Berg was from Philadelphia. If I'm a high school student in Philadelphia, what are the odds that I scan the nation for place to matriculate, and my gaze falls upon Norman, Oklahoma? Again, the odds seem steep. There's probably a legitimate reason this Pennsylvania kid went to college in Norman, but, at first glance, it doesn't look right.
I should say that I've been on the OU campus, and I'm confident OU is a both a fun school and a solid scholastic institution. I'm equally confidant OU is not the first choice of most Philadelphia teenagers.
Update
Berg family spokeperson says Berg encountered Mousaoui on a bus(OU Shuttle Bus?) while at school in Norman. The Berg family spokesperson speculates that Berg helped Mousaoui out of kindness.
288 million American citizens.
One citizen's email password and email account end up being used by Zacarias Moussaoui, and the same citizen later is beheaded by Musab al-Zarqawi. From CBSNews.com-
U.S. officials say the FBI questioned Berg in 2002 after a computer password Berg used in college turned up in the possession of Zacarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative arrested shortly before 9/11 for his suspicious activity at a flight school in Minnesota.
The bureau had already dismissed the connection between Berg and Moussaoui as nothing more than a college student who had been careless about protecting his password.
But in the wake of Berg's gruesome murder, it becomes a stranger than fiction coincidence -- an American who inadvertently gave away his computer password to one notorious al Qaeda operative is later murdered by another notorious al Qaeda operative.
What are the odds that is a coincidence? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? Total number of American contractors in Iraq odds- 1 in 20,000? Lottery odds- 1 in 16 Million? DNA odds- 1 in 30 Million? Total American population odds- 1 in 288 million? Longer odds than that? I don't know how to figure the odds, but whatever the odds that the Berg/Moussaoui/Zarqawi connection was coincidence, they are certainly sky-high. If the Berg/Moussaoui/Zarqawi connection was coincidence, it is one of the amazing coincidences in all history.
Was Berg a spy working for either Al Qaeda or the Americans- or even a third party(Israelis)?
If he was a spy, he had a perfect cover- American entrepreneur working on Communications Towers. The job required (solo?) travel to various far-flung parts of Iraq. From CBSNews.com-
Two e-mails he sent to his family and friends show he traveled widely and unguarded throughout Iraq, an unsafe practice rarely done by Westerners.
Also, think about this- Berg allegedly worked atop Communications Towers. He was in perfect position to plant communications listening devices. Who knows if that happened, but suddenly the scenario doesn't seem ridiculous. From CBS-
Berg wrote about his experiences in trying to track down and later meet an in-law in the Mosul area.
Lets run through this list again-
--Berg/Mousaoui/Zarqawi connection.
--American traveling widely and unguarded throughout Iraq.
--Berg's family hates American military action ("Nicholas Berg died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld."- Michael Berg)
aaaaaannnndd-
--Alleged "in-law"(!!) in Mosul?!
Boiler plate spy novel cover story! And, if it's true, it raises a whole new set of questions.
These coincidences are starting to add up! Add this final bit to the story, again from CBSNews.com-
Officials said the U.S. government warned Berg to leave Iraq, and offered him a flight out of the country, a month before his grisly death. On April 10, four days after Berg was released from an Iraqi prison, an American diplomat offered to put him on a flight to Jordan, State Department spokeswoman Kelly Shannon said. But Berg told the diplomat he "planned to travel overland to Kuwait and would call (his) family from there," Shannon said.
Michael Berg, said that although his son wanted to leave Iraq, he refused the flight offer because he thought the travel to the airport would be too dangerous.
This last bit is completely nonsensical. Berg was warned to get out, and was offered a flight out. He declined, telling his parents
"travel to the airport is too dangerous(?!)."
Instead, he proposed travel to Kuwait?! Solo?! For the purpose of "safety?!" Roll eyes here. There's discrepant reporting as to whether Berg was in Mosul or Baghdad when the flight offer was made. Either way, it's nonsensical that he would travel to Kuwait for "safety" purposes.
Note this detail for future reference- Berg allegedly told the American Diplomat he would call his parents once he got to Kuwait. He apparently did call his parents, as his father gives a detail about why Berg didn't want to go to the airport. Was Berg abducted in Kuwait? How would you get a kidnap victim back across the Iraqi border? Bribe? Subterfuge? Or, maybe the "victim" was a willing travel companion?
It all might be a big series of coincidences. Maybe mitigating facts will come out. Maybe CBSNews.com has some of their facts wrong. But it doesn't look good for our old friend "coincidence." Vincent Bugliosi used to argue against coincidence alibis in this fashion-
The law doesn't say "beyond all doubt," it says "beyond a reasonable doubt." Maybe somewhere on some distant planet in some distant galaxy this set of coincidences could've occurred. But here on the Earth I live on, with brown dirt and green grass and Little Leaguers tossing the ball around, these types of coincidences just do not happen. Here in the real world, it simply does not happen that- on the very day your wife disappears- you go fishing in the ocean within a mile of where her body eventually washes up. That does not happen in the world you and I live in.
PS- This is off the cuff, but-
Fox News reports that Nick Berg and Zaccharias Mousaoui both attended the University of Oklahoma in Norman, OK. Mousaoui used Berg's email account while he was in Norman.
Nick Berg was from Philadelphia. If I'm a high school student in Philadelphia, what are the odds that I scan the nation for place to matriculate, and my gaze falls upon Norman, Oklahoma? Again, the odds seem steep. There's probably a legitimate reason this Pennsylvania kid went to college in Norman, but, at first glance, it doesn't look right.
I should say that I've been on the OU campus, and I'm confident OU is a both a fun school and a solid scholastic institution. I'm equally confidant OU is not the first choice of most Philadelphia teenagers.
Update
Berg family spokeperson says Berg encountered Mousaoui on a bus(OU Shuttle Bus?) while at school in Norman. The Berg family spokesperson speculates that Berg helped Mousaoui out of kindness.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
ARod Magnum Opus: What Went Wrong in Arlington
(Greg's note: I wrote this as a way to psychically and emotionally cleanse ARod from my system. I recommend writing a magnum opus for anyone similarly afflicted. I really love ARod on the field. And I was sad he was gone. I feel better now.)
When compared with fans coming from Tarrant County, a disproportionately low number of Ranger fans come from Dallas County, and a disproportionately low number of that group comes from the City of Dallas itself.
Tom Hicks lives in Dallas. When he looked at purchasing the Rangers, his attention focused on Dallas County as an untapped reservoir of Ranger fans. A franchise deal was made with this in mind: increased Ranger attendance from Dallas County would equate to increased Ranger revenue.
Based on his Brett Hull free agent experience, Hicks thought he knew the formula: a star free agent, living in Dallas and being an enthusiastic member of the Dallas community. Dallas would be proud of their star, and Dallas would flock to The Ballpark to watch the star play for the Rangers.
Examples of this dynamic exist all over the sports world: Roger Staubach in Dallas, Brett Favre in Green Bay, Dan Marino in Miami, John Elway in Denver; Julius Irving in Philadelphia, Magic Johnson in L.A; Ozzie Smith in St. Louis, Derek Jeter in New York, Nomar in Boston, Bagwell and Biggio in Houston. Even in Dallas, Brad Davis and Derek Harper and Rolando Blackmon were perfect examples. All continue to live in Dallas; all are respected icons of the community. Brett Hull was another good example. Hull loved living in Dallas, and might of lived there in retirement if he had he not been traded. The fans took to Hull partially for this reason. Which is all how Tom Hick's gaze fell on ARod.
Tom Hick's didn't fully consider that ARod was already a God/icon in Miami, and ARod had no intention of diminishing that status. ARod is approximately as big as Dan Marino in Miami. In the offseason, when he's not on the sidelines of University of Miami football games, and not working out with the University of Miami Baseball Team, ARod works out at his childhood Boys Club, with his childhood Boy's Club Director giving him soft toss and batting tips as needed. Minicams record those workout swings for 10 O'Clock Newscasts. ARod is revered among Miami's Latin community, who read his Spanish Language interviews in the sports sections of their Spanish Language Newspapers. ARod knows the pulse of Miami, and loves to go out to the restaurants and clubs in South Beach, and to hob knob at charity functions and golf tournaments.
Maybe it was impossible to see the impact of this dynamic in advance of signing ARod. For whatever reason, Hicks did not see the full repercussions of ARod's marriage to Miami. Before negotiations began, Hicks laid out his scenario for ARod: Hicks would not pursue ARod unless ARod was willing to wed himself to Dallas, and become Dallas' Superstar. Hicks conducted an elaborate Chamber of Commerce type campaign to woo ARod for Dallas, and to simultaneously woo Dallas for ARod. All parties fell into lust.
And here is the moment ARod began lying to Hicks and treating Dallas like his mistress: ARod promised to divorce Miami and wed Dallas. And he re-promised over and over, even after the contract was signed. Every offseason, ARod ran back to Miami, calling over his shoulder that he would divorce Miami soon, just not right now. When ARod returned the next season, did he go out for fabulous nights on the town with Dallas? No, he did not. He holed up in his Highland Park love-nest and did to Dallas what all men do to their mistress, month after month and year after year.
I specifically remember the ARod contract speculation: How much would it take to sign ARod? $16M/season? No, ARod would break the bank if he came to the Rangers: $18M for sure. If the Rangers really wanted him, they could go to $20M/season and ARod would crawl on broken glass to get to Arlington-- who wouldn't?
We now know ARod was going for the money, and the media salary speculation was very accurate: $18Mish would've likely gotten ARod, $20M would've done the deal almost for sure. But Hicks had that Dallas County revenue stream in mind, and he went higher. Also, somewhere inside the negotiations, Hicks developed ARod fever, just like Jerry Jones had done 5 years earlier with Deion. Like Jones, Hicks began bidding against himself, and eventually went to $25M/season. Who wouldn't have given up everything for ARod? But ARod was a too-smooth Latin lover. A Julio Iglesias for the ages.
Besides not wedding himself to Dallas as promised, ARod had another problem when it came to drawing fans through the turnstiles: ARod is a cool as ice personality. He is not outwardly fiery and swashbuckling on the field of battle-- like a Staubach or a Favre or a Marino or an Elway. He is not earthy in interviews-- like a Ditka or a Barkley or a Warren Sapp, or Curt Shilling or Jeff Bagwell, or...Brett Hull. When ARod failed, he lightly chalked it up to the law of averages. ARod never mourned his failures. He never publicly felt pain over them. Had he done so, it would have bonded him more to the fans. ARod was cool and corporate, which did not arouse passion among Ranger fans in either county. Fans liked ARod, but their like did not energize them to the turnstiles. Rangers' attendance declined every year ARod was here, sinking below 1.7M last season.
And now ARod's Achilles Heel flared up: his ego/selfishness. He was ARod, Goldangit! ARod was the best player in the game. ARod did not deserve to lose!
Every offseason, with ARod's strong encouragement, the Rangers would sign free agents and get their hopes up. Every season their free agents would bomb, and the Rangers would finish in last place, with lower attendance, and more dead money going to injured and useless free agents. All of that dried up the funds for purchasing future free agents, so the future looked steadily bleaker and bleaker. It was a vicious cycle.
Two and a half seasons into ARod's Ranger career, Tom Hicks decided enough was enough, and made a firm commitment to build with young players. This meant 2-3 more seasons of losing, so ARod immediately let it slip that he would accept a trade, followed by: Oops. Just thinking out loud fellas, don't take it seriously. I love being with the Rangers.
Whereupon ARod began to maneuver and conspire behind the scenes to get out of Arlington, and even went over to the Dark Side: becoming a discontented locker room disruption who fought with his manager. Impeccable ARod followed the "me-first" tradition of every jerk-athlete who had come before him: Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds, Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury, Terrell Owens and Randy Moss, ARod(and Scott Boras). I believe it was a deliberate attempt to be a pain in the butt so the Rangers would seek to trade him, and would also make him available at favorable terms. In this he succeeded more than admirably. As a bonus, he used his media savvy to come through the process with his reputation unscathed.
ARod left the Rangers and Dallas and Tom Hicks used up and crying in crumpled disarray, as well as responsible for a baby on the way: which is the money Ranger's fans will be sending to New York over the the next 7 seasons, residue of the ARod affair. ARod got the money and the future World Championships and the Pinstriped Immortality. It's easy to see what Ranger fans got, for we are the ones paying 1/3 of ARod's future salary in NY.
At least we know for sure what ARod is worth to a good team: $16M/year-- which is basically what the Yankees will be paying. Ranger fans will be paying ARod a lot of deferred money, and our part equates to maybe $7M-$8M per year(figuring time value of money). Still, it's worth it to get rid of ARod. Relationshipwise, he was no good for us. We'll be better off without him, baby responsibilities and all. It was a hard lesson, but we learned it fully: We will not be dating any more married men. Are you listening, Tom Hicks?
I feel a need to warn New York to watch out. It's not hard to envision more World Championships in NY. It's also not hard to envision ARod working his Machiavellian behind the scenes strategies.
ARod's presence puts a lot of pressure on Jeter and Torre. If Jeter slumps or gets injured, or the Yankees hit a losing streak, there will be an outcry for ARod at SS. ARod might say diplomatic things which will cleverly imply the following:
"I love Jeter, but really we're all in this to win, and I, ARod, ought to be the SS. I love Jeter, and I love his athletic pride, but really he's being selfish by clinging to SS."
ARod would have the advantage of being right about this: he should be at SS. ARod might subtly and masterfully build the pressure on Jeter and Torre, until things finally boil over. Torre could be fired for refusing to replace Jeter. The new manager would put ARod at SS, Jeter at 2B. ARod might skip merrily to SS without facing public blame for his role in the drama. It may not happen, but it's sooooo easy to see it happening. Watch out,New York.
Thus ends the ARod Magnum Opus.
Update: This article (hat tip: Joe Siegler) is exactly what I'm talking about: it speculates about friction between ARod and Jeter. There's no way to know if there's truly friction or not, but this is one of many articles that will speculate about that very thing.
Notice ARod's role, and the role of ARod's Ego, in the entire 2001 spat. Notice also, ARod never said: "You know, I was just wrong to say that, and I'm sorry." Instead, he doggedly tried to justify his statements about Jeter.
Final thought: The best scenario would be if Jeter rose to the occasion, and used ARod's competitive push to sharpen his own play to it's highest level. I love Jeter, and this is my preferred outcome. If it doesn't happen, I will still love Jeter at 2B. I know everyone says Jeter will go to 3B, but he looks like a 2Bman to me.
When compared with fans coming from Tarrant County, a disproportionately low number of Ranger fans come from Dallas County, and a disproportionately low number of that group comes from the City of Dallas itself.
Tom Hicks lives in Dallas. When he looked at purchasing the Rangers, his attention focused on Dallas County as an untapped reservoir of Ranger fans. A franchise deal was made with this in mind: increased Ranger attendance from Dallas County would equate to increased Ranger revenue.
Based on his Brett Hull free agent experience, Hicks thought he knew the formula: a star free agent, living in Dallas and being an enthusiastic member of the Dallas community. Dallas would be proud of their star, and Dallas would flock to The Ballpark to watch the star play for the Rangers.
Examples of this dynamic exist all over the sports world: Roger Staubach in Dallas, Brett Favre in Green Bay, Dan Marino in Miami, John Elway in Denver; Julius Irving in Philadelphia, Magic Johnson in L.A; Ozzie Smith in St. Louis, Derek Jeter in New York, Nomar in Boston, Bagwell and Biggio in Houston. Even in Dallas, Brad Davis and Derek Harper and Rolando Blackmon were perfect examples. All continue to live in Dallas; all are respected icons of the community. Brett Hull was another good example. Hull loved living in Dallas, and might of lived there in retirement if he had he not been traded. The fans took to Hull partially for this reason. Which is all how Tom Hick's gaze fell on ARod.
Tom Hick's didn't fully consider that ARod was already a God/icon in Miami, and ARod had no intention of diminishing that status. ARod is approximately as big as Dan Marino in Miami. In the offseason, when he's not on the sidelines of University of Miami football games, and not working out with the University of Miami Baseball Team, ARod works out at his childhood Boys Club, with his childhood Boy's Club Director giving him soft toss and batting tips as needed. Minicams record those workout swings for 10 O'Clock Newscasts. ARod is revered among Miami's Latin community, who read his Spanish Language interviews in the sports sections of their Spanish Language Newspapers. ARod knows the pulse of Miami, and loves to go out to the restaurants and clubs in South Beach, and to hob knob at charity functions and golf tournaments.
Maybe it was impossible to see the impact of this dynamic in advance of signing ARod. For whatever reason, Hicks did not see the full repercussions of ARod's marriage to Miami. Before negotiations began, Hicks laid out his scenario for ARod: Hicks would not pursue ARod unless ARod was willing to wed himself to Dallas, and become Dallas' Superstar. Hicks conducted an elaborate Chamber of Commerce type campaign to woo ARod for Dallas, and to simultaneously woo Dallas for ARod. All parties fell into lust.
And here is the moment ARod began lying to Hicks and treating Dallas like his mistress: ARod promised to divorce Miami and wed Dallas. And he re-promised over and over, even after the contract was signed. Every offseason, ARod ran back to Miami, calling over his shoulder that he would divorce Miami soon, just not right now. When ARod returned the next season, did he go out for fabulous nights on the town with Dallas? No, he did not. He holed up in his Highland Park love-nest and did to Dallas what all men do to their mistress, month after month and year after year.
I specifically remember the ARod contract speculation: How much would it take to sign ARod? $16M/season? No, ARod would break the bank if he came to the Rangers: $18M for sure. If the Rangers really wanted him, they could go to $20M/season and ARod would crawl on broken glass to get to Arlington-- who wouldn't?
We now know ARod was going for the money, and the media salary speculation was very accurate: $18Mish would've likely gotten ARod, $20M would've done the deal almost for sure. But Hicks had that Dallas County revenue stream in mind, and he went higher. Also, somewhere inside the negotiations, Hicks developed ARod fever, just like Jerry Jones had done 5 years earlier with Deion. Like Jones, Hicks began bidding against himself, and eventually went to $25M/season. Who wouldn't have given up everything for ARod? But ARod was a too-smooth Latin lover. A Julio Iglesias for the ages.
Besides not wedding himself to Dallas as promised, ARod had another problem when it came to drawing fans through the turnstiles: ARod is a cool as ice personality. He is not outwardly fiery and swashbuckling on the field of battle-- like a Staubach or a Favre or a Marino or an Elway. He is not earthy in interviews-- like a Ditka or a Barkley or a Warren Sapp, or Curt Shilling or Jeff Bagwell, or...Brett Hull. When ARod failed, he lightly chalked it up to the law of averages. ARod never mourned his failures. He never publicly felt pain over them. Had he done so, it would have bonded him more to the fans. ARod was cool and corporate, which did not arouse passion among Ranger fans in either county. Fans liked ARod, but their like did not energize them to the turnstiles. Rangers' attendance declined every year ARod was here, sinking below 1.7M last season.
And now ARod's Achilles Heel flared up: his ego/selfishness. He was ARod, Goldangit! ARod was the best player in the game. ARod did not deserve to lose!
Every offseason, with ARod's strong encouragement, the Rangers would sign free agents and get their hopes up. Every season their free agents would bomb, and the Rangers would finish in last place, with lower attendance, and more dead money going to injured and useless free agents. All of that dried up the funds for purchasing future free agents, so the future looked steadily bleaker and bleaker. It was a vicious cycle.
Two and a half seasons into ARod's Ranger career, Tom Hicks decided enough was enough, and made a firm commitment to build with young players. This meant 2-3 more seasons of losing, so ARod immediately let it slip that he would accept a trade, followed by: Oops. Just thinking out loud fellas, don't take it seriously. I love being with the Rangers.
Whereupon ARod began to maneuver and conspire behind the scenes to get out of Arlington, and even went over to the Dark Side: becoming a discontented locker room disruption who fought with his manager. Impeccable ARod followed the "me-first" tradition of every jerk-athlete who had come before him: Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds, Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury, Terrell Owens and Randy Moss, ARod(and Scott Boras). I believe it was a deliberate attempt to be a pain in the butt so the Rangers would seek to trade him, and would also make him available at favorable terms. In this he succeeded more than admirably. As a bonus, he used his media savvy to come through the process with his reputation unscathed.
ARod left the Rangers and Dallas and Tom Hicks used up and crying in crumpled disarray, as well as responsible for a baby on the way: which is the money Ranger's fans will be sending to New York over the the next 7 seasons, residue of the ARod affair. ARod got the money and the future World Championships and the Pinstriped Immortality. It's easy to see what Ranger fans got, for we are the ones paying 1/3 of ARod's future salary in NY.
At least we know for sure what ARod is worth to a good team: $16M/year-- which is basically what the Yankees will be paying. Ranger fans will be paying ARod a lot of deferred money, and our part equates to maybe $7M-$8M per year(figuring time value of money). Still, it's worth it to get rid of ARod. Relationshipwise, he was no good for us. We'll be better off without him, baby responsibilities and all. It was a hard lesson, but we learned it fully: We will not be dating any more married men. Are you listening, Tom Hicks?
I feel a need to warn New York to watch out. It's not hard to envision more World Championships in NY. It's also not hard to envision ARod working his Machiavellian behind the scenes strategies.
ARod's presence puts a lot of pressure on Jeter and Torre. If Jeter slumps or gets injured, or the Yankees hit a losing streak, there will be an outcry for ARod at SS. ARod might say diplomatic things which will cleverly imply the following:
"I love Jeter, but really we're all in this to win, and I, ARod, ought to be the SS. I love Jeter, and I love his athletic pride, but really he's being selfish by clinging to SS."
ARod would have the advantage of being right about this: he should be at SS. ARod might subtly and masterfully build the pressure on Jeter and Torre, until things finally boil over. Torre could be fired for refusing to replace Jeter. The new manager would put ARod at SS, Jeter at 2B. ARod might skip merrily to SS without facing public blame for his role in the drama. It may not happen, but it's sooooo easy to see it happening. Watch out,New York.
Thus ends the ARod Magnum Opus.
Update: This article (hat tip: Joe Siegler) is exactly what I'm talking about: it speculates about friction between ARod and Jeter. There's no way to know if there's truly friction or not, but this is one of many articles that will speculate about that very thing.
Notice ARod's role, and the role of ARod's Ego, in the entire 2001 spat. Notice also, ARod never said: "You know, I was just wrong to say that, and I'm sorry." Instead, he doggedly tried to justify his statements about Jeter.
Final thought: The best scenario would be if Jeter rose to the occasion, and used ARod's competitive push to sharpen his own play to it's highest level. I love Jeter, and this is my preferred outcome. If it doesn't happen, I will still love Jeter at 2B. I know everyone says Jeter will go to 3B, but he looks like a 2Bman to me.
Friday, January 23, 2004
1992 Cowboys-49ers NFC Championship
Went to Best Buy earlier this evening. They had the 1992 Cowboys-49ers NFC Championship Game Recap playing on HD TV. The format showed each play, usually twice, interspersed with retrospective commentary from the participants. Ended up watching for about 45 minutes.
HD TV is noticeably superior to regular TV. Emmitt Smith had a jagged cut on his arm, and it felt like I could reach out and touch the blood.
This was a fun uniform game. Against the Red and Gold 49ers, the Cowboys pants have never looked so blue. The field was wonderfully muddy and wet, with globs of turf shearing up everywhere. The uniforms were wet and muddy and grass-stained and ripped. HD TV showed this beautifully.
It's easy to forget how powerful the 49ers were going into this game. All through the game, through body language and facial expression, the 49ers showed they thought they were the superior team. Their defensive front seven was rugged and aggressive and talented. This was a frenetic and viciously contested game. The 49ers scored with 4:22 remaining in the 4th, drawing within 4. Both Young and Rice stated at this point, they fully believed they would win. The Cowboys would be stopped; the mighty West Coast Offense would win the game.
It was then that Alvin Harper caught his slant. Alvin Harper sucks. After the catch and run, he raised his arms in a method intended to celebrate himself-- not his team's accomplishment. Aikman comes on the screen and says he saw the coverage as he broke the huddle for that play. He knew Irvin would have gotten across the CB's face against the coverage, but he was nervous about Harper doing so. On the replay, presnap, you can see Aikman actually hand motion to Harper to get across the CB's face. Aikman said he decided to trust Harper, but remained concerned. Thank goodness Harper made the play. Harper had more talent than Irvin. But Irvin is going to the Hall of Fame, and Harper had an average career.
Again and again, on crucial downs, Aikman threw the slant to Irvin. I saw three of them, and I didn't watch the whole game. Irvin was wearing Eric Davis like a fur coat at a drug trial, but he caught all three slants. Any other WR would've been covered. With Aikman's accuracy and Irvin's size, the plays were successful.
Irvin also caught a skinny post for 20 yards, going down inside the 5 yard line. This pattern is straight for about 12 yards, then slants at a shallow 25 Degree angle. Again, the coverage was excellent, and Aikman gunned the ball exactly into a small opening. Irvin made an aggressive striding move for the ball, catching it in the classic index fingers and thumbs triangle, 12 inches in front of his chest. As he began to tuck it he was violently double hit and whipsawed between Mervin Hanks and Davis: Bam/Bam. Irvin never even got a foot on the ground after the catch. Irvin, as best I recall, was insta-spun 270 degrees-- his butt drill-bitted itself into the turf, exploring for oil under Candlestick. He tipped over at the end of his spin. From a prone position, Irvin flipped the ball to the ref and popped back to the huddle, a Weeblo that wobbled but didn't stay down. Watching, I realized I never doubted that Irvin would catch the pass. He was so big and tough. He knew he would take whatever Hanks and Davis had and still make the catch. It was almost routine for him. For anyone today, the catch would be praised to high heaven. I doubt Randy Moss, for instance, would've made this typical Irvin catch. What am I saying? Moss wouldn't even have run the pattern.
Both Aikman and Young took 3 and 5 step drops, not 7. There was not much blitzing-- compared to today. Twice, on crucial 3rd and longs, Aikman dropped 5 steps, hesitated, and dumped to Emmitt Smith-- once for 15 yards and a first down, once for about 12 yards and a touchdown. It's shocking that the 49ers would ignore Smith, who began both plays as a blocker. Smith was at the height of his greatness in this game: running, blocking, receiving, protecting the ball. He was such a pleasure to watch. He could do one thing about as good as anyone: he could make a defender miss within a very small space. He did it twice while I watched. Once, Emmitt had about 12 inches of space on either side. A normal runner would've been dead. Somehow, Emmitt "Ole'd" the defender and went through that little space.
Leon Lett was a monster in this game. Thomas Everett was all grit and guile. Without a salary cap, this team would have won who knows how many Super Bowls. Even when the 49ers beat them in that great Championship Game in 1994, the Cowboys had already suffered significant Salary Cap losses: Ken Norton was playing for the 49ers, defensive Linemen were gone, Kevin Gogan was gone. This 1992 Cowboys team was impossibly deep and impossibly young. That's why they would've run off an incredible streak of Super Bowls. My opinion, anyway. Shared by a lot of others.
It still amazes that rookies Kevin Smith and Larry Brown stood up against Rice and John Taylor. Course they had some help. Still...
Aikman and Smith protected the ball. Young and Ricky Waters turned it over. That was the difference in the game. Without the turnovers, these teams might of played dead even. To me, protecting the ball is an attribute of great players. It's not an accident.
Anyway, it was an enjoyable 45 minutes of viewing. The winning touchdown was scored by a golden oldie: Kelvin Martin! Number 83. Worming the ball juuust atop the Goal Line with an ankle high shimmy. That was a great game.
HD TV is noticeably superior to regular TV. Emmitt Smith had a jagged cut on his arm, and it felt like I could reach out and touch the blood.
This was a fun uniform game. Against the Red and Gold 49ers, the Cowboys pants have never looked so blue. The field was wonderfully muddy and wet, with globs of turf shearing up everywhere. The uniforms were wet and muddy and grass-stained and ripped. HD TV showed this beautifully.
It's easy to forget how powerful the 49ers were going into this game. All through the game, through body language and facial expression, the 49ers showed they thought they were the superior team. Their defensive front seven was rugged and aggressive and talented. This was a frenetic and viciously contested game. The 49ers scored with 4:22 remaining in the 4th, drawing within 4. Both Young and Rice stated at this point, they fully believed they would win. The Cowboys would be stopped; the mighty West Coast Offense would win the game.
It was then that Alvin Harper caught his slant. Alvin Harper sucks. After the catch and run, he raised his arms in a method intended to celebrate himself-- not his team's accomplishment. Aikman comes on the screen and says he saw the coverage as he broke the huddle for that play. He knew Irvin would have gotten across the CB's face against the coverage, but he was nervous about Harper doing so. On the replay, presnap, you can see Aikman actually hand motion to Harper to get across the CB's face. Aikman said he decided to trust Harper, but remained concerned. Thank goodness Harper made the play. Harper had more talent than Irvin. But Irvin is going to the Hall of Fame, and Harper had an average career.
Again and again, on crucial downs, Aikman threw the slant to Irvin. I saw three of them, and I didn't watch the whole game. Irvin was wearing Eric Davis like a fur coat at a drug trial, but he caught all three slants. Any other WR would've been covered. With Aikman's accuracy and Irvin's size, the plays were successful.
Irvin also caught a skinny post for 20 yards, going down inside the 5 yard line. This pattern is straight for about 12 yards, then slants at a shallow 25 Degree angle. Again, the coverage was excellent, and Aikman gunned the ball exactly into a small opening. Irvin made an aggressive striding move for the ball, catching it in the classic index fingers and thumbs triangle, 12 inches in front of his chest. As he began to tuck it he was violently double hit and whipsawed between Mervin Hanks and Davis: Bam/Bam. Irvin never even got a foot on the ground after the catch. Irvin, as best I recall, was insta-spun 270 degrees-- his butt drill-bitted itself into the turf, exploring for oil under Candlestick. He tipped over at the end of his spin. From a prone position, Irvin flipped the ball to the ref and popped back to the huddle, a Weeblo that wobbled but didn't stay down. Watching, I realized I never doubted that Irvin would catch the pass. He was so big and tough. He knew he would take whatever Hanks and Davis had and still make the catch. It was almost routine for him. For anyone today, the catch would be praised to high heaven. I doubt Randy Moss, for instance, would've made this typical Irvin catch. What am I saying? Moss wouldn't even have run the pattern.
Both Aikman and Young took 3 and 5 step drops, not 7. There was not much blitzing-- compared to today. Twice, on crucial 3rd and longs, Aikman dropped 5 steps, hesitated, and dumped to Emmitt Smith-- once for 15 yards and a first down, once for about 12 yards and a touchdown. It's shocking that the 49ers would ignore Smith, who began both plays as a blocker. Smith was at the height of his greatness in this game: running, blocking, receiving, protecting the ball. He was such a pleasure to watch. He could do one thing about as good as anyone: he could make a defender miss within a very small space. He did it twice while I watched. Once, Emmitt had about 12 inches of space on either side. A normal runner would've been dead. Somehow, Emmitt "Ole'd" the defender and went through that little space.
Leon Lett was a monster in this game. Thomas Everett was all grit and guile. Without a salary cap, this team would have won who knows how many Super Bowls. Even when the 49ers beat them in that great Championship Game in 1994, the Cowboys had already suffered significant Salary Cap losses: Ken Norton was playing for the 49ers, defensive Linemen were gone, Kevin Gogan was gone. This 1992 Cowboys team was impossibly deep and impossibly young. That's why they would've run off an incredible streak of Super Bowls. My opinion, anyway. Shared by a lot of others.
It still amazes that rookies Kevin Smith and Larry Brown stood up against Rice and John Taylor. Course they had some help. Still...
Aikman and Smith protected the ball. Young and Ricky Waters turned it over. That was the difference in the game. Without the turnovers, these teams might of played dead even. To me, protecting the ball is an attribute of great players. It's not an accident.
Anyway, it was an enjoyable 45 minutes of viewing. The winning touchdown was scored by a golden oldie: Kelvin Martin! Number 83. Worming the ball juuust atop the Goal Line with an ankle high shimmy. That was a great game.
Monday, November 17, 2003
The Wookie Defense
*
Johnnie Cochran made a court appearance in a famous Southpark episode. He was losing his case. So, in his closing argument, Cochran pulled out his secret weapon: the "Wookie Defense." When plaintiff's attorney saw the "Wookie Defense" coming, he buried his head in his hands.
Cochran unrolled a huge picture of Chewbaka. I'll get some details wrong, but this is close what he said:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, this...is Chewbaka. Chewbaka is a Wookie from the planet Enduron. But Chewbaka lives with a bunch of Ewoks on the planet Endor. Why would an 8' tall Wookie live with a bunch of Ewoks on a different planet? Does that make sense?
That does not make sense. Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, does it make sense that Chewbaka would live on Endor?
It does not make sense!
This case does not make sense!
How can my client be guilty if Chewbaka is livin on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks? It does not make sense! If Chewbaka lives on Endor you must acquit! Thank you."
Of course, Cochran won an acquittal, countersued, and won millions of dollars from Chef. Chef decided to gigolo himself out to raise funds to pay the lawsuit. The children tried to raise funds by selling baked goods to Chef's old music industry friends, and we learned that Chef inspired Meat Loaf to ditch his previous performing name: Cous Cous. But that's another story.
Johnnie Cochran made a court appearance in a famous Southpark episode. He was losing his case. So, in his closing argument, Cochran pulled out his secret weapon: the "Wookie Defense." When plaintiff's attorney saw the "Wookie Defense" coming, he buried his head in his hands.
Cochran unrolled a huge picture of Chewbaka. I'll get some details wrong, but this is close what he said:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, this...is Chewbaka. Chewbaka is a Wookie from the planet Enduron. But Chewbaka lives with a bunch of Ewoks on the planet Endor. Why would an 8' tall Wookie live with a bunch of Ewoks on a different planet? Does that make sense?
That does not make sense. Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, does it make sense that Chewbaka would live on Endor?
It does not make sense!
This case does not make sense!
How can my client be guilty if Chewbaka is livin on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks? It does not make sense! If Chewbaka lives on Endor you must acquit! Thank you."
Of course, Cochran won an acquittal, countersued, and won millions of dollars from Chef. Chef decided to gigolo himself out to raise funds to pay the lawsuit. The children tried to raise funds by selling baked goods to Chef's old music industry friends, and we learned that Chef inspired Meat Loaf to ditch his previous performing name: Cous Cous. But that's another story.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
TCU-Houston
A first hand account from the Houston office:
Attended the TCU – Houston match last night.
· Do you know how long it takes to score 117 points? The most ever in a U of H game, breaking the record of 116 set in the 1989 Houston romp of SMU (95-21).
· Hobbs reminds me of some old Cowboys running back that I can’t remember, but Merrill reminds me of Emmett Smith. 204 very impressive yards.
· The whole game was sort of like overtime, if you didn’t score a touchdown on a possession then it was considered a failure.
· The TCU defense only stopped the Houston offense once from early in the 2Q to the end of the game. This and the Houston unforced fumble in the 4Q were the difference in the game.
· Houston was down 15 pts with 6 minutes to play. They had 4th and 10 from their own ~35. They punted. Sounds like a reasonable move, but it was a big screw up by the Houston coaching staff. They had a better chance of making 4th and 10 than their defense stopping TCU.
· Drop back passers and running (only) quarterbacks are soon to be extinct in the NCAA. Reggie McNeal gets a lot of press at A&M, but there are a dozen other quarterbacks in the south alone that can run and pass as good or better. Houston’s offense is to spread four wide outs to the four corners on every play. The running play is a designed quarterback scramble. Houston quarterback had 114 yards. Most of them on what I believe were designed quarterback draws/scrambles.
· Stupid rule – quarterbacks can intentionally ground when outside the tackles. College rules favor the offense. No matter how good your defense is, you can’t win consistently without a powerful offense.
· I’m not too sure about TCU being the best team in Texas. I think a TCU – Tech match would end up 84 – 72 with Tech on top. I suspect UT’s size would squash TCU, but I’d still like to see the game. They say that Texas is too much flash and not enough substance. When it comes to flash, TCU could certainly hold their own against the Horns.
· Second Runner-up Best Karen Comment: “Why do all the Frog fans make rabbit hand puppets whenever they kick-off?”
· First Runner-up Best Karen Comment: As the Frog and Cougar mascots are fake fighting on the sideline - “They're both nearly extinct and really don’t want to be hurting each other.”
· Best Karen Comment: “Who let the Frogs out?.....Who!? Who!? Who!? Who!? Who!?
Can’t wait to see the BCS rankings.
Jeff
Greg's comments:
1) if the Frog fans make rabbit hand puppets on every kickoff, they must have carpal tunnel by now.
2) its an interesting situation when a RB(Hobbs) gains 100 yards and its not that impressive of a performance.
Thanks for the first hand account!!
Attended the TCU – Houston match last night.
· Do you know how long it takes to score 117 points? The most ever in a U of H game, breaking the record of 116 set in the 1989 Houston romp of SMU (95-21).
· Hobbs reminds me of some old Cowboys running back that I can’t remember, but Merrill reminds me of Emmett Smith. 204 very impressive yards.
· The whole game was sort of like overtime, if you didn’t score a touchdown on a possession then it was considered a failure.
· The TCU defense only stopped the Houston offense once from early in the 2Q to the end of the game. This and the Houston unforced fumble in the 4Q were the difference in the game.
· Houston was down 15 pts with 6 minutes to play. They had 4th and 10 from their own ~35. They punted. Sounds like a reasonable move, but it was a big screw up by the Houston coaching staff. They had a better chance of making 4th and 10 than their defense stopping TCU.
· Drop back passers and running (only) quarterbacks are soon to be extinct in the NCAA. Reggie McNeal gets a lot of press at A&M, but there are a dozen other quarterbacks in the south alone that can run and pass as good or better. Houston’s offense is to spread four wide outs to the four corners on every play. The running play is a designed quarterback scramble. Houston quarterback had 114 yards. Most of them on what I believe were designed quarterback draws/scrambles.
· Stupid rule – quarterbacks can intentionally ground when outside the tackles. College rules favor the offense. No matter how good your defense is, you can’t win consistently without a powerful offense.
· I’m not too sure about TCU being the best team in Texas. I think a TCU – Tech match would end up 84 – 72 with Tech on top. I suspect UT’s size would squash TCU, but I’d still like to see the game. They say that Texas is too much flash and not enough substance. When it comes to flash, TCU could certainly hold their own against the Horns.
· Second Runner-up Best Karen Comment: “Why do all the Frog fans make rabbit hand puppets whenever they kick-off?”
· First Runner-up Best Karen Comment: As the Frog and Cougar mascots are fake fighting on the sideline - “They're both nearly extinct and really don’t want to be hurting each other.”
· Best Karen Comment: “Who let the Frogs out?.....Who!? Who!? Who!? Who!? Who!?
Can’t wait to see the BCS rankings.
Jeff
Greg's comments:
1) if the Frog fans make rabbit hand puppets on every kickoff, they must have carpal tunnel by now.
2) its an interesting situation when a RB(Hobbs) gains 100 yards and its not that impressive of a performance.
Thanks for the first hand account!!
TCU 62 - Houston 55
There was no overtime. This was the closest thing to touch football that I've ever seen.
In the previous 5 games, TCU had given up 61 total points. TCU was allowing an average of 278 Total Yards per game going in. Houston had 685 yards total offense in the game.
TCU lost their veteran safety 3 weeks ago. He was arguably their best defender, and he ran the coverages in the secondary. TCU's secondary was completely confused against Houston, and allowed receivers to run free all day.
Houston completed only 17 passes- for 442 yards! Houston averaged 26 yards per completion! I've never heard of anything like that in any game.
TCU's starting QB did not suit up. The backup QB threw 17 of 27 for 375 and 4 TD's, 0 Int's, plus 10 rushes for 66 yards.
TCU Redshirt freshman Robert Merrill rushed for 204 yards. TCU sophomore Lonta Hobbs rushed for 102 yards (shades of the Pony Express!).
TCU rushed for 407 yards, and passed for 375 yards, setting a school record of 782 total yards in the game.
The Houston QB threw for 442 yards and rushed for 114 yards.
Houston had a receiver catch 6 for 232 with 2 TD's.
TCU had a receiver catch 6 for 171 with 2 TD's, then add a rushing TD for his 3rd TD of the game. This kid went to high school in Houston, so this was a memorable day for him.
Both teams combined for 63 first downs.
The combined point total of 117 is a Conference USA record.
There were no defensive touchdowns in the game.
I'm hoping Jeff and Karen saw this game from the end zone!
In the previous 5 games, TCU had given up 61 total points. TCU was allowing an average of 278 Total Yards per game going in. Houston had 685 yards total offense in the game.
TCU lost their veteran safety 3 weeks ago. He was arguably their best defender, and he ran the coverages in the secondary. TCU's secondary was completely confused against Houston, and allowed receivers to run free all day.
Houston completed only 17 passes- for 442 yards! Houston averaged 26 yards per completion! I've never heard of anything like that in any game.
TCU's starting QB did not suit up. The backup QB threw 17 of 27 for 375 and 4 TD's, 0 Int's, plus 10 rushes for 66 yards.
TCU Redshirt freshman Robert Merrill rushed for 204 yards. TCU sophomore Lonta Hobbs rushed for 102 yards (shades of the Pony Express!).
TCU rushed for 407 yards, and passed for 375 yards, setting a school record of 782 total yards in the game.
The Houston QB threw for 442 yards and rushed for 114 yards.
Houston had a receiver catch 6 for 232 with 2 TD's.
TCU had a receiver catch 6 for 171 with 2 TD's, then add a rushing TD for his 3rd TD of the game. This kid went to high school in Houston, so this was a memorable day for him.
Both teams combined for 63 first downs.
The combined point total of 117 is a Conference USA record.
There were no defensive touchdowns in the game.
I'm hoping Jeff and Karen saw this game from the end zone!
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Kill Bill
"This my finest sword. If in your journey you should encounter God, God will be cut."
This is exuberant moviemaking!
It is waaay bloody. Samurai Swords and Bushido Honor Code run all through the movie. The combination consistently leads to blood and death.
You forgive the blood because the movie is a modern fable/cartoon. It is Japanese Anime come to life. A realistic fable wouldn't be as much fun- and, come to think of it, wouldn't even be a fable!
The movie is all about action. Roger Ebert: "The movie is all storytelling and no story." He means it as a compliment.
More Ebert: "Quentin Tarantino is so effortlessly and brilliantly in command of his technique that he reminds me of a virtuoso violinist racing through 'Flight of the Bumble Bee.'" http://www.suntimes.com/index/ebert1.html
Another reviewer says the movie "is for the 15 year old boy in all of us."
The movie is for the 7 year old boy in me, because that's when I was introduced to the "Green Hornet" TV show, and the Green Hornet's trusty sidekick "Kato"(Bruce Lee). Since that age, I have never doubted that one exceptional martial artist could dispense with 6 or 12 or 20 sequentially attacking opponents. If you doubt this premise, or the premise that one's opponents naturally attack in sequence instead of en masse, then this is not the movie for you.
I am not an expert, but I noticed nodding homages to:
Chop Socky (of course)
Star Wars- with an overt nod to Yoda and Luke, and even "The Force"
Blaxploitation
Pulp Fiction
Dressed to Kill, which itself was an homage to Psycho
Smokey and the Bandit
The Amazing Bob
Just saw an adrenaline-fueled pregame skirmish be thwarted by Texas and OU coaches, who charged headlong into the middle of the gestating riot and forced their respective players back to their areas.
Watching Bob Stoops scream and shove and gesticulate at his charges, I was reminded of nothing so much as a lion tamer at the circus- a Siegfeld and Roy fighting back the big cats, armed only with hubris and self-assured body language.
All Stoops was missing was a whip and a chair: "Watch the Amazing Bob place his head inside the Defensive Tackle's mouth! Let's give him a hand! Now watch the Amazing Bob call for a fake punt on 4th and 8!"
Tiger Stadium
Just watched LSU come onto the field at Tiger Stadium for the Florida game. Every college team coming onto the field is a good moment, but LSU has raised it to an art.
When the Tigers come out of their locker room, a video feed goes out to 100,000 fans, who jump to their feet and begin to build the din of noise. On video, the fans watch the players walk down a short ramp and touch a tasteful "Win" sign as they squeeze through ancient double doors and assimilate under a goal post. The sign is the only touch of moderation in this stadium at this moment.
The LSU band has formed thick parallel columns on the hash marks, walling an alley from the goal line to the 25 yard line. Each column is a full 5 yards of thickness, and is dense with horn players and flautist packed in a tight formation. The columns are imposing. They convey power and strength.
The fans are fueled with alcohol and adrenaline. They are screaming for their heroes. And now the heroes start through the columns, not wildly and out of control, but slowly, like a composed and formidable lava mass that spreads when it exits mouth of the columns, devouring the earth before it. And now the band blasts the familiar and exuberant notes as noise in the stadium crescendos into a louder roar- like that of a jumbo jet approaching and passing directly over your head. Scowling tiger roars can be dimly heard over the stadium loudspeakers. It is quite wonderful, and worth the price of admission.
This is exuberant moviemaking!
It is waaay bloody. Samurai Swords and Bushido Honor Code run all through the movie. The combination consistently leads to blood and death.
You forgive the blood because the movie is a modern fable/cartoon. It is Japanese Anime come to life. A realistic fable wouldn't be as much fun- and, come to think of it, wouldn't even be a fable!
The movie is all about action. Roger Ebert: "The movie is all storytelling and no story." He means it as a compliment.
More Ebert: "Quentin Tarantino is so effortlessly and brilliantly in command of his technique that he reminds me of a virtuoso violinist racing through 'Flight of the Bumble Bee.'" http://www.suntimes.com/index/ebert1.html
Another reviewer says the movie "is for the 15 year old boy in all of us."
The movie is for the 7 year old boy in me, because that's when I was introduced to the "Green Hornet" TV show, and the Green Hornet's trusty sidekick "Kato"(Bruce Lee). Since that age, I have never doubted that one exceptional martial artist could dispense with 6 or 12 or 20 sequentially attacking opponents. If you doubt this premise, or the premise that one's opponents naturally attack in sequence instead of en masse, then this is not the movie for you.
I am not an expert, but I noticed nodding homages to:
Chop Socky (of course)
Star Wars- with an overt nod to Yoda and Luke, and even "The Force"
Blaxploitation
Pulp Fiction
Dressed to Kill, which itself was an homage to Psycho
Smokey and the Bandit
The Amazing Bob
Just saw an adrenaline-fueled pregame skirmish be thwarted by Texas and OU coaches, who charged headlong into the middle of the gestating riot and forced their respective players back to their areas.
Watching Bob Stoops scream and shove and gesticulate at his charges, I was reminded of nothing so much as a lion tamer at the circus- a Siegfeld and Roy fighting back the big cats, armed only with hubris and self-assured body language.
All Stoops was missing was a whip and a chair: "Watch the Amazing Bob place his head inside the Defensive Tackle's mouth! Let's give him a hand! Now watch the Amazing Bob call for a fake punt on 4th and 8!"
Tiger Stadium
Just watched LSU come onto the field at Tiger Stadium for the Florida game. Every college team coming onto the field is a good moment, but LSU has raised it to an art.
When the Tigers come out of their locker room, a video feed goes out to 100,000 fans, who jump to their feet and begin to build the din of noise. On video, the fans watch the players walk down a short ramp and touch a tasteful "Win" sign as they squeeze through ancient double doors and assimilate under a goal post. The sign is the only touch of moderation in this stadium at this moment.
The LSU band has formed thick parallel columns on the hash marks, walling an alley from the goal line to the 25 yard line. Each column is a full 5 yards of thickness, and is dense with horn players and flautist packed in a tight formation. The columns are imposing. They convey power and strength.
The fans are fueled with alcohol and adrenaline. They are screaming for their heroes. And now the heroes start through the columns, not wildly and out of control, but slowly, like a composed and formidable lava mass that spreads when it exits mouth of the columns, devouring the earth before it. And now the band blasts the familiar and exuberant notes as noise in the stadium crescendos into a louder roar- like that of a jumbo jet approaching and passing directly over your head. Scowling tiger roars can be dimly heard over the stadium loudspeakers. It is quite wonderful, and worth the price of admission.
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
"White man's math" and "the mathematics of exclusion"
Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online:
Verbal tests are constantly accused of racial bias, but how about math tests? The Thernstroms wonder how those can be biased.
Ah, but reason has little place in this realm. The president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics - no less - said - get this - "Traditional mathematics is the mathematics of exclusion." There you have it.
I know a man - a math prof - who, years ago, spent a sabbatical in South Africa. Someone there told him, "We don't believe the white man's math."
Verbal tests are constantly accused of racial bias, but how about math tests? The Thernstroms wonder how those can be biased.
Ah, but reason has little place in this realm. The president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics - no less - said - get this - "Traditional mathematics is the mathematics of exclusion." There you have it.
I know a man - a math prof - who, years ago, spent a sabbatical in South Africa. Someone there told him, "We don't believe the white man's math."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
