It started in San Francisco (of course it did). Now, it's spreading to my hometown. (via Michael Graham)
Since when did plastic become the most important thing on everyone's minds?
Let's skip ahead, though, to the last two paragraphs of this piece, as it clearly illustrates why this measure supported by 9 of the 12 members of the City Council is over-reaching and unnecessary (emphasis mine):
"Still, the production of paper bags produces more water and air pollution than plastic bags, according to the EPA, which promotes the use of reusable bags. Paper bags also take up more space in landfills."
"Boston has a recycling program, which in 2005 recovered 17 percent of the 302,000 tons of waste generated by the city. But the city does not accept plastic bags in its program, instead encouraging residents to take the bags back to the retailer."
Here's a hint: why not accept plastic bags instead of charging consumers for using them? Why not accept plastic bags instead of charging supermarkets to come up with more expensive ways to package groceries, a hit the consumer will eventually feel in his wallet anyway?
Because it's all about the money, not the environment. It's always about the money.
Michael Graham is hysterical in his commentary, and manages to point out the lunacy of this idea:
"Meanwhile, State Sen. Brian Joyce is trying to get rid of the plastic bags statewide. His plan is to charge shoppers up to 15 cents per bag if they choose plastic over paper. Doesn't this insensitive earth-hater know that paper bags come from TREES! Why, every paper bag I choose is equal to at least a dozen 'one-square' visits to the potty by Sheryl Crow."
Here's Debbie Schlussel's incisive insight from the San Francisco measure:
"...It's not like people who live, frequent, or shop in San Francisco don't have plastic bags from other cities and suburbs, or get plastic bags from clothing, electronics, and other types of stores, which aren't covered by the silly measure.
"And have fun carrying biodegradable bags made of corn and potato starches in the rain--they'll melt and your purchases will roll around on the ground. That'll hardly eliminate waste. It will only increase it. Way to go, San Francisco."
Way to go, Boston.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Carbon Offsets
First of all, it would probably be a good idea to define a "carbon offset" - here's the definition from greenie David Suzuki (with an included example for clarification):
"A 'carbon offset' is an emission reduction credit from another organization’s project that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. Carbon offsets are typically measured in tons of CO2-equivalents (or 'CO2e') and are bought and sold through a number of international brokers, online retailers, and trading platforms.
"For example, wind energy companies often sell carbon offsets. The wind energy company benefits because the carbon offsets it sells make such projects more economically viable. The buyers of the offsets benefit because they can claim that their purchase resulted in new non-polluting energy, which they can use to mitigate their own greenhouse gas emissions. The buyers may also save money as it may be less expensive for them to purchase offsets than to eliminate their own emissions."
Sounds almost too good to be true, right?
Well, it might be.
Because of their increasing popularity, carbon offsets finally have rightly come under some scrutiny. Are they effective? Does the environment become "greener"? Who's profiting? These are the questions that are finally being asked.
...and the answers are not pretty for the environmentalists.
First, Businessweek examines the "feel-good hype" surrounding carbon offsets and coins what has to be one of my new favorite terms, the "checkbook environmentalist" - someone who thinks he can solve the supposed global warming crisis by merely buying carbon offsets to counter his own massive pollution. (see Al Gore and John Edwards as examples)
What's good about the Businessweek piece is that, from what I can tell, it is not reporting this information through a liberal or conservative lens. Rather, it's simply reporting on current trends which don't seem to be working:
"Done carefully, offsets can have a positive effect and raise ecological awareness. But a close look at several transactions—including those involving the Oscar presenters, Vail Resorts, and the Seattle power company—reveals that some deals amount to little more than feel-good hype. When traced to their source, these dubious offsets often encourage climate protection that would have happened regardless of the buying and selling of paper certificates. One danger of largely symbolic deals is that they may divert attention and resources from more expensive and effective measures."
Read the entire piece for more information on TerraPass, Waste Management Inc., Hollywood ignorance, and how they all tie together.
The Financial Times follows Businessweek's lead - here's what its investigation uncovered:
"A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
"Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway."
So...here are the results:
1) companies are paying for carbon emission reductions, which don't actually occur
2) companies are profiting off carbon trading for cleanups it was already planning
3) the new lucrative business of carbon trading helps big spenders to think they're actually saving the planet when, in actuality, they're diverting resources from other measures which may in fact help
Looks like Gore's ideas aren't as environmentally sound as he thought.
Lorie Byrd makes a fantastic point in addressing the heart of the carbon offset issue, particularly with "limousine liberals" like Al Gore and John Edwards:
"...If global warming is truly a dire threat to the existence of life on earth as Gore and others claim, and if human activity contributes to the problem, what could possibly justify the excessive (I would even say obscene) energy consumption of Gore and other limousine liberals? If paying someone else to behave better than you do (through offsets) is a sufficient answer, I have to wonder just how real the problem is. I also wonder just how much bad behavior can be forgiven with the purchase of offsets."
Another fear of those of us on the right is the idea that government will limit economic progress and, therefore, our general well-being, by creating a "global warming tax" (like Britain) or federally sponsoring the production of ethanol (which corn growers LOVE - but Rebecca Hagelin refutes). John Stossel rightfully argues on the side of economic progress - which will, as a result, help the environment (in response to celebrating Earth Day):
"Human ingenuity and technology not only raised living standards, but also restored environmental amenities. How about a day to celebrate that?"
And...
"President Bush chides us for our 'addiction to oil.' But under current conditions, using oil makes perfect sense. Someday, if we let the free market operate, someone will find an energy source that works better than oil. Then richer future generations won't need oil. So why deprive ourselves and make ourselves poorer with needless regulation now?"
So...it would seem that the world is just fine as it is, and do-gooders like Al Gore really aren't helping anyway. Seems like a win-win to me - the less he can help, the better.
See Sister Toldjah for more.
"A 'carbon offset' is an emission reduction credit from another organization’s project that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. Carbon offsets are typically measured in tons of CO2-equivalents (or 'CO2e') and are bought and sold through a number of international brokers, online retailers, and trading platforms.
"For example, wind energy companies often sell carbon offsets. The wind energy company benefits because the carbon offsets it sells make such projects more economically viable. The buyers of the offsets benefit because they can claim that their purchase resulted in new non-polluting energy, which they can use to mitigate their own greenhouse gas emissions. The buyers may also save money as it may be less expensive for them to purchase offsets than to eliminate their own emissions."
Sounds almost too good to be true, right?
Well, it might be.
Because of their increasing popularity, carbon offsets finally have rightly come under some scrutiny. Are they effective? Does the environment become "greener"? Who's profiting? These are the questions that are finally being asked.
...and the answers are not pretty for the environmentalists.
First, Businessweek examines the "feel-good hype" surrounding carbon offsets and coins what has to be one of my new favorite terms, the "checkbook environmentalist" - someone who thinks he can solve the supposed global warming crisis by merely buying carbon offsets to counter his own massive pollution. (see Al Gore and John Edwards as examples)
What's good about the Businessweek piece is that, from what I can tell, it is not reporting this information through a liberal or conservative lens. Rather, it's simply reporting on current trends which don't seem to be working:
"Done carefully, offsets can have a positive effect and raise ecological awareness. But a close look at several transactions—including those involving the Oscar presenters, Vail Resorts, and the Seattle power company—reveals that some deals amount to little more than feel-good hype. When traced to their source, these dubious offsets often encourage climate protection that would have happened regardless of the buying and selling of paper certificates. One danger of largely symbolic deals is that they may divert attention and resources from more expensive and effective measures."
Read the entire piece for more information on TerraPass, Waste Management Inc., Hollywood ignorance, and how they all tie together.
The Financial Times follows Businessweek's lead - here's what its investigation uncovered:
"A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
"Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway."
So...here are the results:
1) companies are paying for carbon emission reductions, which don't actually occur
2) companies are profiting off carbon trading for cleanups it was already planning
3) the new lucrative business of carbon trading helps big spenders to think they're actually saving the planet when, in actuality, they're diverting resources from other measures which may in fact help
Looks like Gore's ideas aren't as environmentally sound as he thought.
Lorie Byrd makes a fantastic point in addressing the heart of the carbon offset issue, particularly with "limousine liberals" like Al Gore and John Edwards:
"...If global warming is truly a dire threat to the existence of life on earth as Gore and others claim, and if human activity contributes to the problem, what could possibly justify the excessive (I would even say obscene) energy consumption of Gore and other limousine liberals? If paying someone else to behave better than you do (through offsets) is a sufficient answer, I have to wonder just how real the problem is. I also wonder just how much bad behavior can be forgiven with the purchase of offsets."
Another fear of those of us on the right is the idea that government will limit economic progress and, therefore, our general well-being, by creating a "global warming tax" (like Britain) or federally sponsoring the production of ethanol (which corn growers LOVE - but Rebecca Hagelin refutes). John Stossel rightfully argues on the side of economic progress - which will, as a result, help the environment (in response to celebrating Earth Day):
"Human ingenuity and technology not only raised living standards, but also restored environmental amenities. How about a day to celebrate that?"
And...
"President Bush chides us for our 'addiction to oil.' But under current conditions, using oil makes perfect sense. Someday, if we let the free market operate, someone will find an energy source that works better than oil. Then richer future generations won't need oil. So why deprive ourselves and make ourselves poorer with needless regulation now?"
So...it would seem that the world is just fine as it is, and do-gooders like Al Gore really aren't helping anyway. Seems like a win-win to me - the less he can help, the better.
See Sister Toldjah for more.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Ongoing Threat of Radical Islam
One might not know with the wall-to-wall coverage of Don Imus, Rosie O'Donnnell, Virginia Tech, and Anna Nicole's baby, that we're still fighting a war.
According to what's happened around the world this week (or, at least what I've come across this week), we're fighting that war with good reason:
1) British Police Arrest 6 Terror Suspects (via Atlas Shrugs) The New York Times refers to one of those arrested as an "outspoken Islamic activist" - Abu Izzadeen. Here's what Izzadeen thinks of the UK:
"What I would say about those who do suicide operations, or martyrdom operations - they're completely praiseworthy. If I see Mujahadin attack the UK, I always stand with the Muslims".
And...
"Osama bin Laden, excuse me, Sheikh Osama bin Laden, he offered to the British public, and the European people at large, an offer of ceasefire. He said that if they rose up against their governments, brought their troops home, he promised not to attack them. But unfortunately the stiff upper British lip became hardheaded, and we saw what took place on 7 July [meaning, the London bombings]."
Mind you, this person was born and raised in the UK - so much for assimilation and pride in one's country.
There's much more there - read the whole thing.
2) The AP reports that Osama Bin Laden was behind the February attack on Vice President Dick Cheney. Despite this report, doubt is circulating about its authenticity. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, filling in for the recuperating Tony Snow, said it was "an interesting claim but ... I haven't seen any intelligence that would support that."
Hot Air also does some debunking.
Doesn't the question become, though: Why would Mullah Dadullah tell Al Jazeera this if it weren't true? I haven't been able to come up with a good reason...
3) Syria is armed with bio-terror (again, Atlas Shrugs) Smallpox, apparently, is the weapon of choice:
"'Syria is positioned to launch a biological attack on Israel or Europe should the U.S. attack Iran,' Jill Bellamy-Dekker told WND. 'The Syrians are embedding their biological weapons program into their commercial pharmaceuticals business and their veterinary vaccine-research facilities. The intelligence service oversees Syria's 'bio-farm' program and the Ministry of Defense is well interfaced into the effort.'
"Bellamy-Decker currently directs the Public Health Preparedness program for the European Homeland Security Association under the French High Committee for Civil Defense.
"She anticipates a variation of smallpox is the biological agent Syria would utilize.
"'The Syrians are also working on orthopox viruses that are related to smallpox,' Bellamy-Decker said, 'and it's a good way to get around international treaties against offensive biological weapons development. They work on camelpox as a cover for smallpox.'"
Whew! Good thing Harry Reid told the President we can't attack Iran. You know, because there's so much evidence of that...
4) Al Qaeda seemingly responsible for the killing of 9 U.S. soldiers. The International Herald Tribune goes into detail to describe the area where the suicide attacks took place, Mesopotamia:
"The membership of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is made up mostly of Iraqis, with some tribes in the country divided in their loyalties toward the group.
"Al Qaeda was once most active in Anbar Province, a Sunni Arab bastion, but appears to have shifted much of its efforts to Diyala Province, which lies between Iran and Baghdad. The province is a seething caldron of ethnic and sectarian tensions, with Sunni Arab militants driving Shiites from the provincial capital, Iraqi Army units operating under a general loyal to a Shiite militia, and Kurds slowly seizing cities in the north."
The umbrella group responsible for the attack, the Islamic State of Iraq, encompasses Al Qaeda. Apparently, the group was proud of its handiwork, as boastful postings could be found on the internet related to the attack.
5) Ayaan Hirsi Ali threatened with death...AGAIN. According to NewsBusters, though, the mainstream media largely ignored this story, while the focus remained on...Al Sharpton.
Hirsi Ali was scheduled to speak at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown (likely on her book, Infidel, which is something ELSE I have to read!). This is what the Johnstown Islamic Center had to say on her appearance at the University:
"Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali's appearance.
"'She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,'" said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976."
Does that sound like the Religion of Peace to you?
Here is what she says about those constant death threats:
"People are always asking me what it’s like to live with death threats. It’s like being diagnosed with a chronic disease. It may flare up and kill you, but it may not. It could happen in a week, or not for decades.
"The people who ask me this usually have grown up in rich countries — Western Europe and the United States — after the Second World War. They take life for granted. Where I grew up [Somalia], death is a constant visitor."
Here is her website for those who are interested.
Does any of these most recent events penetrate the mind of the left to make them reconsider why de-funding the troops is a bad idea? What's wrong with trying to win this war? Regardless of your stance at the beginning of the war, one must realize that de-funding the troops and, as a result, leaving the region and losing the war, will promote chaos for the region. An unstable Iraq will be taken over by an increasingly vigilant Iran, and the prospects of Iran's nuclear program will likely trigger a nuclear arms race in the region (with Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among others, likely pursuing nuclear development).
In what way is this good for the United States? Despite the negative press, we need to see this war to its end: victory for the United States, and the ultimate safety of our country and people.
According to what's happened around the world this week (or, at least what I've come across this week), we're fighting that war with good reason:
1) British Police Arrest 6 Terror Suspects (via Atlas Shrugs) The New York Times refers to one of those arrested as an "outspoken Islamic activist" - Abu Izzadeen. Here's what Izzadeen thinks of the UK:
"What I would say about those who do suicide operations, or martyrdom operations - they're completely praiseworthy. If I see Mujahadin attack the UK, I always stand with the Muslims".
And...
"Osama bin Laden, excuse me, Sheikh Osama bin Laden, he offered to the British public, and the European people at large, an offer of ceasefire. He said that if they rose up against their governments, brought their troops home, he promised not to attack them. But unfortunately the stiff upper British lip became hardheaded, and we saw what took place on 7 July [meaning, the London bombings]."
Mind you, this person was born and raised in the UK - so much for assimilation and pride in one's country.
There's much more there - read the whole thing.
2) The AP reports that Osama Bin Laden was behind the February attack on Vice President Dick Cheney. Despite this report, doubt is circulating about its authenticity. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, filling in for the recuperating Tony Snow, said it was "an interesting claim but ... I haven't seen any intelligence that would support that."
Hot Air also does some debunking.
Doesn't the question become, though: Why would Mullah Dadullah tell Al Jazeera this if it weren't true? I haven't been able to come up with a good reason...
3) Syria is armed with bio-terror (again, Atlas Shrugs) Smallpox, apparently, is the weapon of choice:
"'Syria is positioned to launch a biological attack on Israel or Europe should the U.S. attack Iran,' Jill Bellamy-Dekker told WND. 'The Syrians are embedding their biological weapons program into their commercial pharmaceuticals business and their veterinary vaccine-research facilities. The intelligence service oversees Syria's 'bio-farm' program and the Ministry of Defense is well interfaced into the effort.'
"Bellamy-Decker currently directs the Public Health Preparedness program for the European Homeland Security Association under the French High Committee for Civil Defense.
"She anticipates a variation of smallpox is the biological agent Syria would utilize.
"'The Syrians are also working on orthopox viruses that are related to smallpox,' Bellamy-Decker said, 'and it's a good way to get around international treaties against offensive biological weapons development. They work on camelpox as a cover for smallpox.'"
Whew! Good thing Harry Reid told the President we can't attack Iran. You know, because there's so much evidence of that...
4) Al Qaeda seemingly responsible for the killing of 9 U.S. soldiers. The International Herald Tribune goes into detail to describe the area where the suicide attacks took place, Mesopotamia:
"The membership of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is made up mostly of Iraqis, with some tribes in the country divided in their loyalties toward the group.
"Al Qaeda was once most active in Anbar Province, a Sunni Arab bastion, but appears to have shifted much of its efforts to Diyala Province, which lies between Iran and Baghdad. The province is a seething caldron of ethnic and sectarian tensions, with Sunni Arab militants driving Shiites from the provincial capital, Iraqi Army units operating under a general loyal to a Shiite militia, and Kurds slowly seizing cities in the north."
The umbrella group responsible for the attack, the Islamic State of Iraq, encompasses Al Qaeda. Apparently, the group was proud of its handiwork, as boastful postings could be found on the internet related to the attack.
5) Ayaan Hirsi Ali threatened with death...AGAIN. According to NewsBusters, though, the mainstream media largely ignored this story, while the focus remained on...Al Sharpton.
Hirsi Ali was scheduled to speak at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown (likely on her book, Infidel, which is something ELSE I have to read!). This is what the Johnstown Islamic Center had to say on her appearance at the University:
"Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali's appearance.
"'She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,'" said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976."
Does that sound like the Religion of Peace to you?
Here is what she says about those constant death threats:
"People are always asking me what it’s like to live with death threats. It’s like being diagnosed with a chronic disease. It may flare up and kill you, but it may not. It could happen in a week, or not for decades.
"The people who ask me this usually have grown up in rich countries — Western Europe and the United States — after the Second World War. They take life for granted. Where I grew up [Somalia], death is a constant visitor."
Here is her website for those who are interested.
Does any of these most recent events penetrate the mind of the left to make them reconsider why de-funding the troops is a bad idea? What's wrong with trying to win this war? Regardless of your stance at the beginning of the war, one must realize that de-funding the troops and, as a result, leaving the region and losing the war, will promote chaos for the region. An unstable Iraq will be taken over by an increasingly vigilant Iran, and the prospects of Iran's nuclear program will likely trigger a nuclear arms race in the region (with Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among others, likely pursuing nuclear development).
In what way is this good for the United States? Despite the negative press, we need to see this war to its end: victory for the United States, and the ultimate safety of our country and people.
Do You Read?
In college, I think many students feel overwhelmed by the amount of required reading they have to do for all their classes (particularly at a liberal arts college), so oftentimes they feel they have little time to read "for themselves", or, what they actually want to read. I know I felt this way. Come June, I was so burnt out from the school year, I generally took summers off from reading.
I'm not like that anymore. And it's crucial not to be.
A couple of different pieces brought this topic to my attention. First, LaShawn Barber (as many of you know, one of my favorites) asked her readers "How many books do you own"? as a light-hearted yet telling post as to where her regular readers stand. She lists her favorites, and many commenters do the same.
Sad to say, I haven't read much of what's on this post. And, since I now consider myself a "reader," I wonder how many other people out there haven't read Song of Solomon, The Screwtape Letters, The Old Man and the Sea, and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (none of which I, a "reader", have read)...
The second reason I bring this topic up is Kathleen Parker's most recent column. Specifically, she cites the reduction in stand-alone book sections of newspapers as an indication that overall readership in the country has declined - people aren't reading books anymore. Given the similar decline in newspaper readership, Parker wonders why newspapers don't try to reach out to a dwindling reading audience:
"From a practical standpoint, it also makes no sense. Clue: People who read newspapers are also likely book readers. So why do newspaper editors and publishers think that killing one of the few features that readers might — big word here — READ is a smart move in an era of newspaper decline?"
For those of you who make the argument that Barnes and Noble and Borders are always packed when you're in there...well, that may be true. People may be buying the books, I suppose, but not reading them. Parker points us to a 2004 survey conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts, which found the following:
- fewer than 1/2 of American adults read literature
- an overall decline of 10% in literary readers from 1982 to 2002, resulting in a loss of 20 million potential readers
- a decline among every single segment of the American population
- the rate of decline for the youngest adults (18 - 24...or, those eligible to be on The Real World) was 55 percent greater than that of the total adult population
These are scary statistics.
I'm curious if these statistics give weight to Ann Coulter's argument that "liberals don't read."
I'm currently reading The Fountainhead (and Atlas Shrugged turns 50 this week, by the way)- if you're not reading anything at the moment, why not?
I'm not like that anymore. And it's crucial not to be.
A couple of different pieces brought this topic to my attention. First, LaShawn Barber (as many of you know, one of my favorites) asked her readers "How many books do you own"? as a light-hearted yet telling post as to where her regular readers stand. She lists her favorites, and many commenters do the same.
Sad to say, I haven't read much of what's on this post. And, since I now consider myself a "reader," I wonder how many other people out there haven't read Song of Solomon, The Screwtape Letters, The Old Man and the Sea, and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (none of which I, a "reader", have read)...
The second reason I bring this topic up is Kathleen Parker's most recent column. Specifically, she cites the reduction in stand-alone book sections of newspapers as an indication that overall readership in the country has declined - people aren't reading books anymore. Given the similar decline in newspaper readership, Parker wonders why newspapers don't try to reach out to a dwindling reading audience:
"From a practical standpoint, it also makes no sense. Clue: People who read newspapers are also likely book readers. So why do newspaper editors and publishers think that killing one of the few features that readers might — big word here — READ is a smart move in an era of newspaper decline?"
For those of you who make the argument that Barnes and Noble and Borders are always packed when you're in there...well, that may be true. People may be buying the books, I suppose, but not reading them. Parker points us to a 2004 survey conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts, which found the following:
- fewer than 1/2 of American adults read literature
- an overall decline of 10% in literary readers from 1982 to 2002, resulting in a loss of 20 million potential readers
- a decline among every single segment of the American population
- the rate of decline for the youngest adults (18 - 24...or, those eligible to be on The Real World) was 55 percent greater than that of the total adult population
These are scary statistics.
I'm curious if these statistics give weight to Ann Coulter's argument that "liberals don't read."
I'm currently reading The Fountainhead (and Atlas Shrugged turns 50 this week, by the way)- if you're not reading anything at the moment, why not?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Pro-Abortion Advocates Be Damned
As the nation and the media recover from Virginia Tech and Imus, a little Supreme Court ruling finally went the conservative way this week, with little media fanfare:
Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure
and was Ruth Bader Ginsburg STEAMED:
"In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion 'cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.'
"She called the ruling 'alarming' and noted the conservative majority 'tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases' by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists."
How about the assumption in this dissent that abortion only affects women's lives? Where did Ginsburg come up with the gall to say that? Or even think it, for that matter? CNN's sub-headline reads "Sole woman on bench reads bitter dissent" - and then, immediately, again emphasizes that Ginsburg is "the only woman on the high court"...as if she's more qualified to voice an opinion on this subject because she's a woman. Sorry, CNN, but I have to point out: many women disagree with Ginsburg.
A reminder from one of my earlier posts on abortion:
1) "It's my body." It's not. It's a body within the womb of a woman. Isn't this undeniable?
2) "I'm not "pro-abortion" - I'm "pro-choice"...ummm - you're pro-abortion. Plain and simple. You can call me anti-choice all you want. As far as abortion goes, I am both pro-life and anti-choice. Those who are "pro-choice" are also "pro-abortion"
3) "safe, legal and rare" - ...If 165,500 abortions in Britain alone in one year is rare...I'd hate to know the definition of "common"...
4) "but abortion should be a last resort" - well, if you're not aborting a human life, why should it matter when you have an abortion? If there is no moral attachment, and abortion is purely a physical procedure, then all forms of abortion should be legal. But, oftentimes, that's not the case. Why? Proponents refuse to acknowledge publicly the moral component, that's why. But they limit the types of abortion (i.e., partial-birth, late-term) to seem sympathetic when all they're really doing is killing the baby earlier.
5) "I have freedom to do what I want - the government can't tell me what to do" - this is true. The government can't tell you that you can't get pregnant. The government can't say you can't get pregnant out of wedlock. But the government can legislate based on moral absolutes - this is one of them: MURDER.
This is a step in the right direction. Hopefully now, the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade will be revisited altogether - and here are two quick reasons why this should take place:
1) The premise of the case was based on a lie. "Jane Roe" initially claimed she was gang-raped - this turned out not to be true. Her pregnancy was the result of a failed relationship.
2) That same "Jane Roe" now opposes Roe v. Wade
I'll be looking for loony lefty responses and posting them later...
Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure
and was Ruth Bader Ginsburg STEAMED:
"In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion 'cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.'
"She called the ruling 'alarming' and noted the conservative majority 'tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases' by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists."
How about the assumption in this dissent that abortion only affects women's lives? Where did Ginsburg come up with the gall to say that? Or even think it, for that matter? CNN's sub-headline reads "Sole woman on bench reads bitter dissent" - and then, immediately, again emphasizes that Ginsburg is "the only woman on the high court"...as if she's more qualified to voice an opinion on this subject because she's a woman. Sorry, CNN, but I have to point out: many women disagree with Ginsburg.
A reminder from one of my earlier posts on abortion:
1) "It's my body." It's not. It's a body within the womb of a woman. Isn't this undeniable?
2) "I'm not "pro-abortion" - I'm "pro-choice"...ummm - you're pro-abortion. Plain and simple. You can call me anti-choice all you want. As far as abortion goes, I am both pro-life and anti-choice. Those who are "pro-choice" are also "pro-abortion"
3) "safe, legal and rare" - ...If 165,500 abortions in Britain alone in one year is rare...I'd hate to know the definition of "common"...
4) "but abortion should be a last resort" - well, if you're not aborting a human life, why should it matter when you have an abortion? If there is no moral attachment, and abortion is purely a physical procedure, then all forms of abortion should be legal. But, oftentimes, that's not the case. Why? Proponents refuse to acknowledge publicly the moral component, that's why. But they limit the types of abortion (i.e., partial-birth, late-term) to seem sympathetic when all they're really doing is killing the baby earlier.
5) "I have freedom to do what I want - the government can't tell me what to do" - this is true. The government can't tell you that you can't get pregnant. The government can't say you can't get pregnant out of wedlock. But the government can legislate based on moral absolutes - this is one of them: MURDER.
This is a step in the right direction. Hopefully now, the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade will be revisited altogether - and here are two quick reasons why this should take place:
1) The premise of the case was based on a lie. "Jane Roe" initially claimed she was gang-raped - this turned out not to be true. Her pregnancy was the result of a failed relationship.
2) That same "Jane Roe" now opposes Roe v. Wade
I'll be looking for loony lefty responses and posting them later...
Virginia Tech Perspective
The consistently brilliant Mark Steyn's piece in National Review is a good place to start analyzing what really happened at Virginia Tech, and why. The first line should indicate to you that it is a provocative must-read:
"I haven’t weighed in yet on Virginia Tech — mainly because, in a saner world, it would not be the kind of incident one needed to have a partisan opinion on."
Of course, he's right.
Steyn takes the media (including - gasp - Fox News) to task for its characterization of many of Cho Seung-hui's victims as "children." However, because of America's culture of prolonged adolescence, the victims were not "adult" enough to respond appropriately when confronted by danger. From Steyn:
"We should be raising [our sons and daughters] to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a 'horrible' world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act."
Second, Steyn addresses the idea of "protection" - of course, the implication is that protection does not come from oneself (say, for instance, by lawfully carrying a concealed weapon), but through institutions...in this case, the school itself, but, on a much larger scale, the government. Naturally, constant protection provided by big government from danger is impossible, though many in the media fail to see that. Steyn uses a 9/11 comparison story to illustrate his point:
"The only good news of [September 11] came from the passengers who didn’t meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals."
Despite the fact that many of us have been on a heightened sense of alert since the September 11th attacks, tragedies like those at Virginia Tech prove that we are still vulnerable - deadly so. By ensuring our freedoms and constitutional rights both on and off campus, we will naturally offer better protection for ourselves and others.
Mot of those victims were helpless (with no way to defend themselves) and hopeless (with no idea how to respond to an emergency of this magnitude). Many are pointing to this article in the Roanoke Times as proof that the 2nd Amendment can be thrown out the window on campus - it's a shame that a tragedy such as this will provoke discussion concerning our rights as U.S. citizens, rights that should have been protected all along.
Morbid quote from the article:
"Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. 'I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.'"
Nothing could be further from the truth.
"I haven’t weighed in yet on Virginia Tech — mainly because, in a saner world, it would not be the kind of incident one needed to have a partisan opinion on."
Of course, he's right.
Steyn takes the media (including - gasp - Fox News) to task for its characterization of many of Cho Seung-hui's victims as "children." However, because of America's culture of prolonged adolescence, the victims were not "adult" enough to respond appropriately when confronted by danger. From Steyn:
"We should be raising [our sons and daughters] to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a 'horrible' world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act."
Second, Steyn addresses the idea of "protection" - of course, the implication is that protection does not come from oneself (say, for instance, by lawfully carrying a concealed weapon), but through institutions...in this case, the school itself, but, on a much larger scale, the government. Naturally, constant protection provided by big government from danger is impossible, though many in the media fail to see that. Steyn uses a 9/11 comparison story to illustrate his point:
"The only good news of [September 11] came from the passengers who didn’t meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals."
Despite the fact that many of us have been on a heightened sense of alert since the September 11th attacks, tragedies like those at Virginia Tech prove that we are still vulnerable - deadly so. By ensuring our freedoms and constitutional rights both on and off campus, we will naturally offer better protection for ourselves and others.
Mot of those victims were helpless (with no way to defend themselves) and hopeless (with no idea how to respond to an emergency of this magnitude). Many are pointing to this article in the Roanoke Times as proof that the 2nd Amendment can be thrown out the window on campus - it's a shame that a tragedy such as this will provoke discussion concerning our rights as U.S. citizens, rights that should have been protected all along.
Morbid quote from the article:
"Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. 'I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.'"
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Rap Music's Influence - LANGUAGE WARNING
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Imus Roundup
Let's be clear: I don't care that Imus was fired. I didn't listen to him, and on the off-chance I did hear him, I didn't listen to him very long.
To me, he was a goner the second the media ran with the story. Honestly, I don't think CBS and MSNBC come out on top here, despite taking the "moral high ground" by firing him. Their initital decision was a two-week suspension, and then, after 8 days, he was gone altogether. Why not fire him, then, in the first place? Because CBS and MSNBC don't care that Imus made disparaging comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team - they care about the almighty dollar. So when sponsors such as Staples, Bigelow Tea, American Express, General Motors and others decided to pull out, the plug was pulled on Imus. Clearly, the final straw was loss of dollars, not public outrage.
Here's what the people are saying, playing various angles:
E. J. Dionne:
"Arguing about Imus does absolutely nothing to provide our poorest African-American kids with better schools, health insurance or a chance at college and higher incomes. We rightly heap praise on those noble Rutgers women, but we should ask ourselves if Imus would have gotten away with comparably sleazy comments targeting less visible and less successful women, or men. I think we know the answer."
Linda Chavez:
"Don Imus is a crank. But his bigoted remarks have made him more famous than anything he's done in the past and will probably attract more listeners when he returns to his ornery morning show than he has ever had. MSNBC and CBS may have cancelled him for now, but he'll be back, and when he returns, ratings will go up. And we can thank the "news" coverage Imus has received when they do."
Jason Whitlock:
"Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.
"The bigots win again.
"While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos."
Pat Buchanan:
While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.
John Fund:
"It's certainly true that many black leaders, ranging from Calvin Butts of New York's Abyssinian Baptist Church to Queen Latifah to the editors of Essence magazine have spoken out against offensive rap lyrics. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have also raised their voices against them. On Friday Barack Obama told a black South Carolina audience that offensive rappers 'are degrading our sisters.' It's about time he stepped forward, since it was Mr. Obama who helped legitimize the rapper Ludicrus, whose oeuvre includes such songs as 'Ho,' 'You'z a Ho' and 'I Got Hos,' by inviting him to his Chicago office last year to talk about, as the Associated Press put it, 'lighting the way for the nation's youth.'
"But there have been almost no calls demanding that any 'gangsta rap' artists be driven from the airwaves as Mr. Imus was or that the record companies promoting 'gangsta rap' be boycotted. Pepsi did drop Ludicrus from its ad campaign after his lyrics angered Oprah Winfrey and also became the subject of a pointed campaign by Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, one of the few media figures who has been willing to take on hate rap foursquare."
Sister Toldjah (re: Obama's response, here):
"...I could appreciate a generalized rant about our culture if that was what was at issue here, but it wasn’t. The issue was Don Imus’ 'nappy-headed hos' comment as it compared to rap music and it’s influence on the black community. Nice way to skip out of issuing a more serious condemnation in favor of the general 'we’re all guilty' standard liberal line whenever people start focusing more intently on problem segments of our society. Guess the Senator didn’t want to risk offending any black voters with a long overdue bit of straight talk, eh? "
Tammy Bruce's website:
"However, whatever his merits and demerits, Imus is just another media curmudgeon. He's not particularly responsible for keeping black people down, and taking him out will not do anything to improve the state of the world. Everybody knows this. The firing is just a war trophy for the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton."
Ann Coulter:
"The reason people don't like what Imus said was because the women on the Rutgers basketball team aren't engaged in public discourse. They're not public figures, they don't have a forum, they aren't trying to influence public policy.
"They play basketball — quite well, apparently — and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose.
"People claim to object to the words alone, but that's because everyone is trying to fit this incident into a PC worldview. It's like girls who say, 'It's not that you cheated on me; it's that you lied about it.' No — it's that you cheated.
"If Imus had called me a 'towheaded ho' or Al Sharpton a 'nappy-headed ho,' it would be what's known as 'funny.' (And if he called Anna Nicole Smith a 'flaxen-headed ho,' it would be 'absolutely accurate.') But he attacked the looks and morals of utterly innocent women, who had done nothing to inject themselves into public debate.
"Imus should apologize to the Rutgers women — and those women alone — send them flowers, and stop kissing Al Sharpton's ring. This wasn't an insult to all mankind, and certainly not an insult to Al Sharpton. Now, if Imus had called the basketball players 'fat, race-baiting black men with clownish hairstyles,' well, then perhaps Sharpton would be owed an apology."
Monica Crowley:
"We've caught Hillary Clinton in another lie, this time involving the Imus firestorm.
"Several days after the controversy broke out, Clinton decided it was safe for her to weigh in on the I-man's comments. Clinton was quoted in the New York Daily News and on her website as saying, 'I've never wanted to go on his show and I certainly don't ever intend to go on his show, and I felt that way before his latest outrageous, hateful, hurtful comments.'
But hold on. She never wanted to go on Imus? After all, her hubby Bill has Imus to thank for saving him in the 1992 New York primaries. Many say Bill Clinton's appearance on the Imus radio show helped him to win in New York and launch him to the national stage. Maybe Imus could do the same for her in 2007?
"It sure sounded like the Clinton camp wanted to go there, when Imus buddy Donald Trump called into the show on April 6th. Anyone who listed to Imus knew how he felt about Hillary. He called her 'Satan,' and vowed she would never appear on his program. That morning, Trump tried to change his mind:
'As you know I mentioned that Hillary wanted to really get on your show. She has a lot of respect for you but it doesn't seem to be reciprocal. She's a terrific woman and she'd do your show gladly but you don't seem to want to according to Bernard and according to watching you, you don't seem to want her on the show.'
"The interview raises some real questions: Was Trump speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign or was he doing this totally on his own? If you listen to the interview, it sure sounds like Trump wasn't asking for himself. Who put Trump up to it?
"You'd think these would be good questions for the mainstream media to ask, but they've been too busy piling on a man who said a stupid thing and bowing to the pressures of two race-baiting hustlers."
Debbie Schlussel:
"These women--who seemed to be basking in their 15 minutes of fame quite exuberantly for women claiming to be upset by it--tried so hard to seem glum, it was hard to tell if I was watching a press conference . . . or extras tryouts for the Lifetime Channel's latest angry-women-done-wrong-by-the-White-man movie of the week, big-and-tall-size.
"Who are Essence Carson, Heather Zurich, and C. Vivian Stringer? Before Monday, we'd never heard of them. After all, they play in a college sport no-one on earth cares about: women's basketball, which has a popularity level lower than the XFL (pro-wrestling's failed football league, which didn't last a full season). And these women weren't even the champions. They lost.
"But now, even though we don't want to, we know their names, while we don't even know--and couldn't care less about--the names of the women on the team (University of Tennessee Volunteers) that beat them and actually won the NCAA women's basketball championship.
"Sounds to me like they owe Donald Imus a big thank you. He put them on the map, to the point that we know more of their names than we do pro women's hoops players. The WNBA President was so jealous that even she had to insert herself into the controversy by piling on with her Imus condemnation."
Kirsten Powers:
"This also isn't about free speech. Nobody is saying Imus should go to jail for what he said. The issue is whether there are standards that you apply to people in the public eye, and if one of those standards is that you don't tolerate blatantly racist comments. When you have a person on the record admitting that they hired someone to make racist jokes, then it's unclear how you cast them as a person who just made a 'mistake.' Seems like more of a 'plan' than a 'mistake.'"
Joe Conason:
"Whatever the true motivation behind the decisions by NBC and CBS to rid themselves of Don Imus, the executives who decided to jettison the bullying schlock jock managed to focus on what mattered most to them. Perhaps they were pandering to frightened advertisers or perhaps they were soothing outraged employees, but the network suits ultimately ignored all the special pleadings, racial diversions and other distracting irrelevancies.
"So should the rest of us, when Imus and his defenders whine about the injustice inflicted on him this week.
"It doesn't matter whether rappers or anybody else use the same disgusting language that Imus and his sidekick Bernard McGuirk used when describing the Rutgers basketball team as 'nappy-headed hos.' Imus himself tried out a version of this argument when he appeared on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show, pointing out that although he is indeed a white man, he is hip enough to know that 'ho' is a term of disrespect heard in the black community. This is a stupid argument, roughly akin to claiming that white ownership of slaves was justifiable because black Africans sold them. The only issue for NBC and CBS was the standard of discourse on their programming, not what some idiots may be saying somewhere else.
"It doesn't matter whether Sharpton -- or any of the other Imus critics -- has raised equally loud objections to vile rap lyrics. There are many reasons, of course, to discount Sharpton as a moral exemplar. Like Imus, he hasn't hesitated to exploit prejudice as part of his act. But changing the subject to the preacher's checkered background doesn't exonerate Imus. Regardless of the preacher's always amazing alacrity, he was not the victim here and his role is not the issue. What Imus did would demand redress even if Sharpton had never elbowed his way into the controversy."
Michelle Malkin:
"I believe top public officials and journalists who have appeared on Imus's show should take responsibility for enabling Imus—and should disavow his longstanding invective.
"But let's take a breath now and look around. Is the Sharpton & Jackson Circus truly committed to cleaning up cultural pollution that demeans women and perpetuates racial epithets?
"...What kind of relief do we get from this deadening, coarsening, dehumanizing barrage from young, black rappers and their music industry enablers who have helped turn America into Tourette's Nation?"
John McWhorter:
"Imus hosts a radio show and a lot of people listen to it. During a few seconds last week he said something tacky. The show went on, as did life. Black people continued to constitute most new AIDS cases, black men continued to come out of prison unsupervised. And we're supposed to be most interested in Imus saying 'nappy-headed ho's'?
"What creates that hypersensitivity is a poor racial self-image. Where, after all, did Imus pick up the very terminology he used? Rap music and the language young black people use themselves on the street to refer to one another.
"What Imus said is lowdown indeed, but so is the way blacks refer to each other. And life goes on."
Lastly, LaShawn Barber, who sums up my viewpoint better than I could:
"If black Americans in 2007 are this delicate and overreact to the slightest insults with this much unrighteous indignation, it’s pretty safe to say black people are not made the way they used to be, of stronger stuff, able to withstand truly demeaning and criminal treatment at the hands of true oppressors. It’s sad to know that the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of people who faced actual oppression are so much weaker, much less discerning, and much more undignified."
And this is just what I've read - there's much more out there. Who do you agree/disagree with?
To me, he was a goner the second the media ran with the story. Honestly, I don't think CBS and MSNBC come out on top here, despite taking the "moral high ground" by firing him. Their initital decision was a two-week suspension, and then, after 8 days, he was gone altogether. Why not fire him, then, in the first place? Because CBS and MSNBC don't care that Imus made disparaging comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team - they care about the almighty dollar. So when sponsors such as Staples, Bigelow Tea, American Express, General Motors and others decided to pull out, the plug was pulled on Imus. Clearly, the final straw was loss of dollars, not public outrage.
Here's what the people are saying, playing various angles:
E. J. Dionne:
"Arguing about Imus does absolutely nothing to provide our poorest African-American kids with better schools, health insurance or a chance at college and higher incomes. We rightly heap praise on those noble Rutgers women, but we should ask ourselves if Imus would have gotten away with comparably sleazy comments targeting less visible and less successful women, or men. I think we know the answer."
Linda Chavez:
"Don Imus is a crank. But his bigoted remarks have made him more famous than anything he's done in the past and will probably attract more listeners when he returns to his ornery morning show than he has ever had. MSNBC and CBS may have cancelled him for now, but he'll be back, and when he returns, ratings will go up. And we can thank the "news" coverage Imus has received when they do."
Jason Whitlock:
"Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.
"The bigots win again.
"While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos."
Pat Buchanan:
While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.
John Fund:
"It's certainly true that many black leaders, ranging from Calvin Butts of New York's Abyssinian Baptist Church to Queen Latifah to the editors of Essence magazine have spoken out against offensive rap lyrics. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have also raised their voices against them. On Friday Barack Obama told a black South Carolina audience that offensive rappers 'are degrading our sisters.' It's about time he stepped forward, since it was Mr. Obama who helped legitimize the rapper Ludicrus, whose oeuvre includes such songs as 'Ho,' 'You'z a Ho' and 'I Got Hos,' by inviting him to his Chicago office last year to talk about, as the Associated Press put it, 'lighting the way for the nation's youth.'
"But there have been almost no calls demanding that any 'gangsta rap' artists be driven from the airwaves as Mr. Imus was or that the record companies promoting 'gangsta rap' be boycotted. Pepsi did drop Ludicrus from its ad campaign after his lyrics angered Oprah Winfrey and also became the subject of a pointed campaign by Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, one of the few media figures who has been willing to take on hate rap foursquare."
Sister Toldjah (re: Obama's response, here):
"...I could appreciate a generalized rant about our culture if that was what was at issue here, but it wasn’t. The issue was Don Imus’ 'nappy-headed hos' comment as it compared to rap music and it’s influence on the black community. Nice way to skip out of issuing a more serious condemnation in favor of the general 'we’re all guilty' standard liberal line whenever people start focusing more intently on problem segments of our society. Guess the Senator didn’t want to risk offending any black voters with a long overdue bit of straight talk, eh? "
Tammy Bruce's website:
"However, whatever his merits and demerits, Imus is just another media curmudgeon. He's not particularly responsible for keeping black people down, and taking him out will not do anything to improve the state of the world. Everybody knows this. The firing is just a war trophy for the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton."
Ann Coulter:
"The reason people don't like what Imus said was because the women on the Rutgers basketball team aren't engaged in public discourse. They're not public figures, they don't have a forum, they aren't trying to influence public policy.
"They play basketball — quite well, apparently — and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose.
"People claim to object to the words alone, but that's because everyone is trying to fit this incident into a PC worldview. It's like girls who say, 'It's not that you cheated on me; it's that you lied about it.' No — it's that you cheated.
"If Imus had called me a 'towheaded ho' or Al Sharpton a 'nappy-headed ho,' it would be what's known as 'funny.' (And if he called Anna Nicole Smith a 'flaxen-headed ho,' it would be 'absolutely accurate.') But he attacked the looks and morals of utterly innocent women, who had done nothing to inject themselves into public debate.
"Imus should apologize to the Rutgers women — and those women alone — send them flowers, and stop kissing Al Sharpton's ring. This wasn't an insult to all mankind, and certainly not an insult to Al Sharpton. Now, if Imus had called the basketball players 'fat, race-baiting black men with clownish hairstyles,' well, then perhaps Sharpton would be owed an apology."
Monica Crowley:
"We've caught Hillary Clinton in another lie, this time involving the Imus firestorm.
"Several days after the controversy broke out, Clinton decided it was safe for her to weigh in on the I-man's comments. Clinton was quoted in the New York Daily News and on her website as saying, 'I've never wanted to go on his show and I certainly don't ever intend to go on his show, and I felt that way before his latest outrageous, hateful, hurtful comments.'
But hold on. She never wanted to go on Imus? After all, her hubby Bill has Imus to thank for saving him in the 1992 New York primaries. Many say Bill Clinton's appearance on the Imus radio show helped him to win in New York and launch him to the national stage. Maybe Imus could do the same for her in 2007?
"It sure sounded like the Clinton camp wanted to go there, when Imus buddy Donald Trump called into the show on April 6th. Anyone who listed to Imus knew how he felt about Hillary. He called her 'Satan,' and vowed she would never appear on his program. That morning, Trump tried to change his mind:
'As you know I mentioned that Hillary wanted to really get on your show. She has a lot of respect for you but it doesn't seem to be reciprocal. She's a terrific woman and she'd do your show gladly but you don't seem to want to according to Bernard and according to watching you, you don't seem to want her on the show.'
"The interview raises some real questions: Was Trump speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign or was he doing this totally on his own? If you listen to the interview, it sure sounds like Trump wasn't asking for himself. Who put Trump up to it?
"You'd think these would be good questions for the mainstream media to ask, but they've been too busy piling on a man who said a stupid thing and bowing to the pressures of two race-baiting hustlers."
Debbie Schlussel:
"These women--who seemed to be basking in their 15 minutes of fame quite exuberantly for women claiming to be upset by it--tried so hard to seem glum, it was hard to tell if I was watching a press conference . . . or extras tryouts for the Lifetime Channel's latest angry-women-done-wrong-by-the-White-man movie of the week, big-and-tall-size.
"Who are Essence Carson, Heather Zurich, and C. Vivian Stringer? Before Monday, we'd never heard of them. After all, they play in a college sport no-one on earth cares about: women's basketball, which has a popularity level lower than the XFL (pro-wrestling's failed football league, which didn't last a full season). And these women weren't even the champions. They lost.
"But now, even though we don't want to, we know their names, while we don't even know--and couldn't care less about--the names of the women on the team (University of Tennessee Volunteers) that beat them and actually won the NCAA women's basketball championship.
"Sounds to me like they owe Donald Imus a big thank you. He put them on the map, to the point that we know more of their names than we do pro women's hoops players. The WNBA President was so jealous that even she had to insert herself into the controversy by piling on with her Imus condemnation."
Kirsten Powers:
"This also isn't about free speech. Nobody is saying Imus should go to jail for what he said. The issue is whether there are standards that you apply to people in the public eye, and if one of those standards is that you don't tolerate blatantly racist comments. When you have a person on the record admitting that they hired someone to make racist jokes, then it's unclear how you cast them as a person who just made a 'mistake.' Seems like more of a 'plan' than a 'mistake.'"
Joe Conason:
"Whatever the true motivation behind the decisions by NBC and CBS to rid themselves of Don Imus, the executives who decided to jettison the bullying schlock jock managed to focus on what mattered most to them. Perhaps they were pandering to frightened advertisers or perhaps they were soothing outraged employees, but the network suits ultimately ignored all the special pleadings, racial diversions and other distracting irrelevancies.
"So should the rest of us, when Imus and his defenders whine about the injustice inflicted on him this week.
"It doesn't matter whether rappers or anybody else use the same disgusting language that Imus and his sidekick Bernard McGuirk used when describing the Rutgers basketball team as 'nappy-headed hos.' Imus himself tried out a version of this argument when he appeared on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show, pointing out that although he is indeed a white man, he is hip enough to know that 'ho' is a term of disrespect heard in the black community. This is a stupid argument, roughly akin to claiming that white ownership of slaves was justifiable because black Africans sold them. The only issue for NBC and CBS was the standard of discourse on their programming, not what some idiots may be saying somewhere else.
"It doesn't matter whether Sharpton -- or any of the other Imus critics -- has raised equally loud objections to vile rap lyrics. There are many reasons, of course, to discount Sharpton as a moral exemplar. Like Imus, he hasn't hesitated to exploit prejudice as part of his act. But changing the subject to the preacher's checkered background doesn't exonerate Imus. Regardless of the preacher's always amazing alacrity, he was not the victim here and his role is not the issue. What Imus did would demand redress even if Sharpton had never elbowed his way into the controversy."
Michelle Malkin:
"I believe top public officials and journalists who have appeared on Imus's show should take responsibility for enabling Imus—and should disavow his longstanding invective.
"But let's take a breath now and look around. Is the Sharpton & Jackson Circus truly committed to cleaning up cultural pollution that demeans women and perpetuates racial epithets?
"...What kind of relief do we get from this deadening, coarsening, dehumanizing barrage from young, black rappers and their music industry enablers who have helped turn America into Tourette's Nation?"
John McWhorter:
"Imus hosts a radio show and a lot of people listen to it. During a few seconds last week he said something tacky. The show went on, as did life. Black people continued to constitute most new AIDS cases, black men continued to come out of prison unsupervised. And we're supposed to be most interested in Imus saying 'nappy-headed ho's'?
"What creates that hypersensitivity is a poor racial self-image. Where, after all, did Imus pick up the very terminology he used? Rap music and the language young black people use themselves on the street to refer to one another.
"What Imus said is lowdown indeed, but so is the way blacks refer to each other. And life goes on."
Lastly, LaShawn Barber, who sums up my viewpoint better than I could:
"If black Americans in 2007 are this delicate and overreact to the slightest insults with this much unrighteous indignation, it’s pretty safe to say black people are not made the way they used to be, of stronger stuff, able to withstand truly demeaning and criminal treatment at the hands of true oppressors. It’s sad to know that the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of people who faced actual oppression are so much weaker, much less discerning, and much more undignified."
And this is just what I've read - there's much more out there. Who do you agree/disagree with?
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Good News Iraq
1) Encouraging news of Iraqi and U.S. soldiers working together for Iraqi schoolchildren. Telling quote:
"If we give them the ability to learn and get an education, they’re less vulnerable to other influences – like extremist views."
U.S. Army 1st Lt. Kevin Grilo
Amen.
2) Victims of the Tal Afar bombings are being assisted by Iraqi and U.S. peacekeeping troops alike:
"[Army Lt. Col. Malcom] Frost said coalition an Iraqi security forces are working to ensure that the attack doesn't overshadow the good works done during the past 15 months. Schools and medical clinics have been built, infrastructure and the general economic situation of the residents of Tal Afar have been improved.
"'I want to emphasize that this tragic event is absolutely not indicative of the thousands of good things that have happened over the last 15 months in the city of Tal Afar,;Frost said.
"In addition to working with the Iraqis to help secure the city, he added that coalition forces are conducting successful humanitarian assistance missions to provide food, medical supplies and shelter to the victims of the March 27 blast."
Just more signs that U.S. and Iraqi forces are working together, something you'll never hear from the mainstream media.
"If we give them the ability to learn and get an education, they’re less vulnerable to other influences – like extremist views."
U.S. Army 1st Lt. Kevin Grilo
Amen.
2) Victims of the Tal Afar bombings are being assisted by Iraqi and U.S. peacekeeping troops alike:
"[Army Lt. Col. Malcom] Frost said coalition an Iraqi security forces are working to ensure that the attack doesn't overshadow the good works done during the past 15 months. Schools and medical clinics have been built, infrastructure and the general economic situation of the residents of Tal Afar have been improved.
"'I want to emphasize that this tragic event is absolutely not indicative of the thousands of good things that have happened over the last 15 months in the city of Tal Afar,;Frost said.
"In addition to working with the Iraqis to help secure the city, he added that coalition forces are conducting successful humanitarian assistance missions to provide food, medical supplies and shelter to the victims of the March 27 blast."
Just more signs that U.S. and Iraqi forces are working together, something you'll never hear from the mainstream media.
Update on Sean Bell; More Crime in Boston
I first wrote about Sean Bell here.
The latest from must-read Heather Mac Donald first exposes the New York Times for, yet again, inaccurate, incomplete, biased reporting:
"A March [New York Times] article, for instance, devoted itself to charges that the police were preying on the black community. After noting that more than half the people whom cops stop and frisk are black, Times reporter Diane Cardwell added: 'City officials maintained that those stopped and searched roughly parallel the race of people mentioned in reports from crime victims.' No, actually, there is no 'rough parallel' between the proportion of stops and the proportion of alleged assailants: blacks aren’t stopped enough, considering the rate at which they commit crimes. Though blacks, 24 percent of New York City’s population, committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in the city last year, according to victims and witnesses, they were only 55 percent of all stop-and-frisks. Of course, the Times didn’t give the actual crime figures. Even a spate of vicious assaults on police officers in the week before the indictments didn’t change the predominant story line that officers were trigger-happy racists."
By these statistics, the problem is not racist cops - it's that blacks in New York City commit a lot of crimes. Reasons for this seemingly vary, depending on your way of thinking: liberals say it's because whites don't care that blacks die, so blacks kill other blacks to get revenge on a white society which doesn't respect or acknowledge black manhood (make sense? Didn't think so.).
Sound-minded conservatives, like LaShawn Barber, offer comments on black-on-black violence here, in conjunction with the Sean Bell case and the first Duke rape case:
"Look, I understand the all-too-human tendency to point fingers, but important to the development of good character is a willingness to face hard truths. Black crime rates are out of control, and it’s not white peoples’ faults. Criminality and incarceration (however brief) is a defining characteristic of black subculture. The least of our concerns are drunk white men at house parties or perceived 'racist' police shootings. If white cops want to kill black men and white boys want to rape black women, they’ll need to kill and violate a hell of a lot of them to catch up to black-on-black crime stats."
Back to Heather Mac Donald's piece: after chronicling the Sean Bell case and its aftermath, Mac Donald offers this solution up to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the "black community":
"Unless black leaders—real or media-created—muster the will to address the crime epidemic among black youth (most of it inflicted on other blacks), the ongoing carnage will almost inevitably include an infinitesimal number of accidental police shootings of unarmed men. Criminal activity among young African-Americans is the poison of cities and of race relations; if Bloomberg can force a conversation about it, he could help reclaim urban America."
Let's hope Bloomberg listens.
Meanwhile, violence continues in Boston with more innocent victims. NY Daily News relays suspicions of gang violence:
"Cops suspect the shooting was related to ongoing violence among Cape Verdean gangsters in the Dorchester neighborhood.
An 18-year-old with multiple arrests and a violent reputation, Jason Barbosa, walked into the hospital minutes later with a bullet wound in his shoulder. Cops suspect he may have been in the car [in which Chiara Levin was killed] at the time."
And, the revealing truth about Dorchester, and the "progress" of the investigation:
"Boston cops said no one was held behind bars.
"'It's possible that someone was being questioned, but no one was taken into custody, handcuffed or otherwise,' said Officer Eddy Chrispin, a police spokesman.
"Neighbors said the party on the first floor of a rundown gray three-story apartment building was a weekly event in a neighborhood stung by gunfire and nearby murders. The building was still sealed off by cops last night.
"'They have parties every weekend. You've got to wonder why he holds them. It's not safe,' said a neighbor who heard the shots."
Predictably, still no arrests.
Mayor Menino's new idea, apparently, is to end after-hours partying....I think real punishments, such as arrests and long jail sentences, might work better.
With violence continuing and no arrests made, it seems as if no progress is being made. Let's hope these crimes are taken seriously and the perpetrators punished to the fullest extent of the law. The climate is right to make an example of anyone caught committing a violent crime, and the example should stand as the rule, rather than the exception.
The latest from must-read Heather Mac Donald first exposes the New York Times for, yet again, inaccurate, incomplete, biased reporting:
"A March [New York Times] article, for instance, devoted itself to charges that the police were preying on the black community. After noting that more than half the people whom cops stop and frisk are black, Times reporter Diane Cardwell added: 'City officials maintained that those stopped and searched roughly parallel the race of people mentioned in reports from crime victims.' No, actually, there is no 'rough parallel' between the proportion of stops and the proportion of alleged assailants: blacks aren’t stopped enough, considering the rate at which they commit crimes. Though blacks, 24 percent of New York City’s population, committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in the city last year, according to victims and witnesses, they were only 55 percent of all stop-and-frisks. Of course, the Times didn’t give the actual crime figures. Even a spate of vicious assaults on police officers in the week before the indictments didn’t change the predominant story line that officers were trigger-happy racists."
By these statistics, the problem is not racist cops - it's that blacks in New York City commit a lot of crimes. Reasons for this seemingly vary, depending on your way of thinking: liberals say it's because whites don't care that blacks die, so blacks kill other blacks to get revenge on a white society which doesn't respect or acknowledge black manhood (make sense? Didn't think so.).
Sound-minded conservatives, like LaShawn Barber, offer comments on black-on-black violence here, in conjunction with the Sean Bell case and the first Duke rape case:
"Look, I understand the all-too-human tendency to point fingers, but important to the development of good character is a willingness to face hard truths. Black crime rates are out of control, and it’s not white peoples’ faults. Criminality and incarceration (however brief) is a defining characteristic of black subculture. The least of our concerns are drunk white men at house parties or perceived 'racist' police shootings. If white cops want to kill black men and white boys want to rape black women, they’ll need to kill and violate a hell of a lot of them to catch up to black-on-black crime stats."
Back to Heather Mac Donald's piece: after chronicling the Sean Bell case and its aftermath, Mac Donald offers this solution up to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the "black community":
"Unless black leaders—real or media-created—muster the will to address the crime epidemic among black youth (most of it inflicted on other blacks), the ongoing carnage will almost inevitably include an infinitesimal number of accidental police shootings of unarmed men. Criminal activity among young African-Americans is the poison of cities and of race relations; if Bloomberg can force a conversation about it, he could help reclaim urban America."
Let's hope Bloomberg listens.
Meanwhile, violence continues in Boston with more innocent victims. NY Daily News relays suspicions of gang violence:
"Cops suspect the shooting was related to ongoing violence among Cape Verdean gangsters in the Dorchester neighborhood.
An 18-year-old with multiple arrests and a violent reputation, Jason Barbosa, walked into the hospital minutes later with a bullet wound in his shoulder. Cops suspect he may have been in the car [in which Chiara Levin was killed] at the time."
And, the revealing truth about Dorchester, and the "progress" of the investigation:
"Boston cops said no one was held behind bars.
"'It's possible that someone was being questioned, but no one was taken into custody, handcuffed or otherwise,' said Officer Eddy Chrispin, a police spokesman.
"Neighbors said the party on the first floor of a rundown gray three-story apartment building was a weekly event in a neighborhood stung by gunfire and nearby murders. The building was still sealed off by cops last night.
"'They have parties every weekend. You've got to wonder why he holds them. It's not safe,' said a neighbor who heard the shots."
Predictably, still no arrests.
Mayor Menino's new idea, apparently, is to end after-hours partying....I think real punishments, such as arrests and long jail sentences, might work better.
With violence continuing and no arrests made, it seems as if no progress is being made. Let's hope these crimes are taken seriously and the perpetrators punished to the fullest extent of the law. The climate is right to make an example of anyone caught committing a violent crime, and the example should stand as the rule, rather than the exception.
...But Don't Question Their Patriotism
A sympathetic portrait of tax evaders in liberal bastion San Francisco - because they don't support the war.
(via Michelle Malkin)
(via Michelle Malkin)
Who's Heard This Before?
I have.
To promote panic mode, the article just about ends thusly:
"The devastating 2005 season set a record with 28 named storms, 15 of them hurricanes. Four of those hurricanes hit the U.S. coast, the worst among them Katrina, which devastated New Orleans and leveled parts of the Gulf Coast region."
We get it - Katrina was bad. Can we move on (even though New Orleans hasn't)?
Here is what scientist William Gray, quoted in the AP piece, predicted last year. Naturally, the AP doesn't mention how far off Gray was, merely saying that "last year, Gray's forecast and government forecasts were higher than what the Atlantic hurricane season produced."
But here's the breakdown:
Gray's 2006 prediction - major storms: 5
hurricanes :9
tropical storms: 17
actual 2006 Atlantic hurricane season - major storms: 2
hurricanes: 5
tropical storms: 10
Gray also "calculate[d] an 81 percent chance that at least one major hurricane will hit the U.S. coast in 2006. " That didn't happen, either.
The National Hurricane Center got it wrong in 2006, too.
More scare tactics from Reuters, with gloomier predictions:
"The Atlantic hurricane season will be exceptionally active this year, according to a British forecasting group, raising the possibility that killer storms like Hurricane Katrina could again threaten the United States."
I guess we'll see how it all plays out - but I'm not putting too much credence into these predictions...
To promote panic mode, the article just about ends thusly:
"The devastating 2005 season set a record with 28 named storms, 15 of them hurricanes. Four of those hurricanes hit the U.S. coast, the worst among them Katrina, which devastated New Orleans and leveled parts of the Gulf Coast region."
We get it - Katrina was bad. Can we move on (even though New Orleans hasn't)?
Here is what scientist William Gray, quoted in the AP piece, predicted last year. Naturally, the AP doesn't mention how far off Gray was, merely saying that "last year, Gray's forecast and government forecasts were higher than what the Atlantic hurricane season produced."
But here's the breakdown:
Gray's 2006 prediction - major storms: 5
hurricanes :9
tropical storms: 17
actual 2006 Atlantic hurricane season - major storms: 2
hurricanes: 5
tropical storms: 10
Gray also "calculate[d] an 81 percent chance that at least one major hurricane will hit the U.S. coast in 2006. " That didn't happen, either.
The National Hurricane Center got it wrong in 2006, too.
More scare tactics from Reuters, with gloomier predictions:
"The Atlantic hurricane season will be exceptionally active this year, according to a British forecasting group, raising the possibility that killer storms like Hurricane Katrina could again threaten the United States."
I guess we'll see how it all plays out - but I'm not putting too much credence into these predictions...
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Leftist Thuggery
If you don't know by now, Press Secretary Tony Snow's cancer has returned and spread to his liver. The only clear course of action is to "aggressively fight the disease," according to this AP piece.
Certainly, the nation should keep Snow in its prayers.
But, predictably, that can't be the case with the Angry Left. Here are a few choice examples:
1) Onmilation says:
Dear Tony,
I hate you.
-God
2) ph7 says:
At least we now know cancer is bi-partisan...
3) David Flores says:
Man, this is awful news. Let's just hope that Tony Snow isn't one of the 40 million Americans without health insurance who this Administration hasn't lifed a finger to help, because then he and his family stand to lose everything they own desperately trying to pay for his treatment. (Why do I suspect this won't be an issue).
4) Fred_O_E_Caldo says:
I'm impressed by all the sympathy for a guy who sells out our nation 24/7. You people are stronger than I am. I say: Let's see him spin this one away.
"I don't know. What do you think it means that I have cancer?"
5) sjc says:
Dear God --
I hate myself.
-- Tony
6) V572625694 says:
It seems uncharitable to make this observation, and as someone whose wife had breast cancer I am quite sympathetic to Snow's personal situation, but Jesus Christ!--is there NOTHING on earth the Bush flacks won't use for political gain?
7) TDoff says:
Under the heading of 'What goes around comes around', the cancer in Tony Snow is removing the cancer of Tony Snow from the national scene.
OMG, could there be a god?
8) PeeJay says:
Maybe he'll have a Lee Atwateresque deathbed transformation and come clean about everything.
9) Lionel Hutz says:
Mr. Snow's doctor's have told Mr. Snow that they could simply remove his liver and he would be better. They have given him a deadline of August, 2008 by which they have to act.
Mr. Snow however stated that he felt such artificial deadlines would just embolden the cancer, and that to cut and run his liver out of his body would mean that the cancer had won. As such, he has refused the treatment, stating that he believed that by fighting the cancer in his liver, he would not have to fight it elsewhere. He denied rumors that he was planning a pre-emptive surgery on his kidneys, although he stated that he would not take any options off the table and that his kidneys would never be allowed to have cancer as long as he is around.
10) PeeJay says:
Yes, the Holier Than Thou crowd is right. We should wish Tony, W, Cheney and Gonzales nothing but the best of health, so that we can then waterboard the shit out of them until they tell us the truth about, well, anything would be nice.
There's more on the site - with very few comments expressing true sympathy.
There was more Snow Bashing at Huffington Post but it was thankfully deleted.
You may be wondering if the Right did any bashing when Elizabeth Edwards announced her cancer had returned, as well.
Let's see...
Not here. Or here (but, note who stirs up trouble - it's "Kathy", the loony Lefty). BUT...
...very interesting comments here about what Elizabeth Edwards has said in the past about cancer victims - namely, Laura Ingraham.
Here's her post on Democratic Underground. It seems as if she tries to wish Laura well, but can't help herself towards the end (emphasis mine):
"...As I go through treatment for this same disease, I think often about the women who fight breast cancer without health insurance, without a supportive husband, with a physically demanding job that doesn't know or doesn't care that she is exhausted and weak and aching, with children but no child care. I find it absolutely impossible that LI won't also have those thoughts run through her head or that she won't rethink her position on health care or the social safety net. Pray for her health AND her enlightenment, if you must. But pray, with me, for her good health."
Call me crazy - but isn't that a little unnecessary? Please note the deranged comments left about Laura on the site as well.
Regardless, keep Elizabeth Edwards in your prayers as well. Even if Time Magazine doesn't care.
Certainly, the nation should keep Snow in its prayers.
But, predictably, that can't be the case with the Angry Left. Here are a few choice examples:
1) Onmilation says:
Dear Tony,
I hate you.
-God
2) ph7 says:
At least we now know cancer is bi-partisan...
3) David Flores says:
Man, this is awful news. Let's just hope that Tony Snow isn't one of the 40 million Americans without health insurance who this Administration hasn't lifed a finger to help, because then he and his family stand to lose everything they own desperately trying to pay for his treatment. (Why do I suspect this won't be an issue).
4) Fred_O_E_Caldo says:
I'm impressed by all the sympathy for a guy who sells out our nation 24/7. You people are stronger than I am. I say: Let's see him spin this one away.
"I don't know. What do you think it means that I have cancer?"
5) sjc says:
Dear God --
I hate myself.
-- Tony
6) V572625694 says:
It seems uncharitable to make this observation, and as someone whose wife had breast cancer I am quite sympathetic to Snow's personal situation, but Jesus Christ!--is there NOTHING on earth the Bush flacks won't use for political gain?
7) TDoff says:
Under the heading of 'What goes around comes around', the cancer in Tony Snow is removing the cancer of Tony Snow from the national scene.
OMG, could there be a god?
8) PeeJay says:
Maybe he'll have a Lee Atwateresque deathbed transformation and come clean about everything.
9) Lionel Hutz says:
Mr. Snow's doctor's have told Mr. Snow that they could simply remove his liver and he would be better. They have given him a deadline of August, 2008 by which they have to act.
Mr. Snow however stated that he felt such artificial deadlines would just embolden the cancer, and that to cut and run his liver out of his body would mean that the cancer had won. As such, he has refused the treatment, stating that he believed that by fighting the cancer in his liver, he would not have to fight it elsewhere. He denied rumors that he was planning a pre-emptive surgery on his kidneys, although he stated that he would not take any options off the table and that his kidneys would never be allowed to have cancer as long as he is around.
10) PeeJay says:
Yes, the Holier Than Thou crowd is right. We should wish Tony, W, Cheney and Gonzales nothing but the best of health, so that we can then waterboard the shit out of them until they tell us the truth about, well, anything would be nice.
There's more on the site - with very few comments expressing true sympathy.
There was more Snow Bashing at Huffington Post but it was thankfully deleted.
You may be wondering if the Right did any bashing when Elizabeth Edwards announced her cancer had returned, as well.
Let's see...
Not here. Or here (but, note who stirs up trouble - it's "Kathy", the loony Lefty). BUT...
...very interesting comments here about what Elizabeth Edwards has said in the past about cancer victims - namely, Laura Ingraham.
Here's her post on Democratic Underground. It seems as if she tries to wish Laura well, but can't help herself towards the end (emphasis mine):
"...As I go through treatment for this same disease, I think often about the women who fight breast cancer without health insurance, without a supportive husband, with a physically demanding job that doesn't know or doesn't care that she is exhausted and weak and aching, with children but no child care. I find it absolutely impossible that LI won't also have those thoughts run through her head or that she won't rethink her position on health care or the social safety net. Pray for her health AND her enlightenment, if you must. But pray, with me, for her good health."
Call me crazy - but isn't that a little unnecessary? Please note the deranged comments left about Laura on the site as well.
Regardless, keep Elizabeth Edwards in your prayers as well. Even if Time Magazine doesn't care.
An Act of War?
You bet.
Melanie Phillips:
"...There is every prospect that these hostages will be used as bargaining counters to force the release of five Iranian Revolutionary Guards who were captured in Iraq by American troops earlier this year.
"Yet in its response to these events, Britain seems to be in some kind of dreamworld. There is no sense of urgency or crisis, no outpouring of anger. There seems to be virtually no grasp of what is at stake.
"Some commentators have languidly observed that in another age this would have been regarded as an act of war. What on earth are they talking about? It is an act of war. There can hardly be a more blatant act of aggression than the kidnapping of another country’s military personnel."
And...
"My goodness, the Iranian regime must be shivering in its shoes. With what contempt they must regard us — a country that stands impotently by while its people are kidnapped and then does no more than bleat that it is ‘disturbed’.
"What on earth has happened to this country of ours, for so many centuries a byword for defending itself against attack, not least against piracy or acts of war on the high seas?"
Does anyone else in Britain think like her? I don't know if anyone in Britain or the U.S. for that matter can rival her in common sense.
I recommend reading the whole piece...and, everything else she writes.
Hot Air demonstrates Blair's weakness:
"'I hope we manage to get them (the Iranian government) to realize they have to release them,' Blair said in an interview with GMTV. "'If not, then this will move into a different phase.'"
He hopes? Why don't you MAKE THEM REALIZE IT?
CNN helps by playing dumb (emphasis mine):
"The female British sailor detained by Iran along with 14 male sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf last week said her crew 'trespassed' in Iranian waters, in comments broadcast Wednesday on Iranian television.
''Obviously we trespassed into their waters,' detainee Faye Turney said in video broadcast by Alalam, an Iranian Arabic language network.
"'They were very friendly, very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we'd been arrested. There was no aggression, no hurt, no harm. They were very, very compassionate,' Turney said.
"It was not known when the videotape was shot, or whether Turney, 26, was able to speak freely, since she is being held against her will."
I'm going to guess her statement was...not of free will. How quickly CNN forgets.
Here's what Tony Blair meant by "different phase", apparently:
"In a first act of retribution against Tehran, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett suspended bilateral talks with Tehran on all other issues. Visits by officials were stopped, issuing visas to Iranian officials suspended and British support for events such as trade missions put on hold, her office said."
I wonder what Britain will do after this doesn't work...
Melanie Phillips:
"...There is every prospect that these hostages will be used as bargaining counters to force the release of five Iranian Revolutionary Guards who were captured in Iraq by American troops earlier this year.
"Yet in its response to these events, Britain seems to be in some kind of dreamworld. There is no sense of urgency or crisis, no outpouring of anger. There seems to be virtually no grasp of what is at stake.
"Some commentators have languidly observed that in another age this would have been regarded as an act of war. What on earth are they talking about? It is an act of war. There can hardly be a more blatant act of aggression than the kidnapping of another country’s military personnel."
And...
"My goodness, the Iranian regime must be shivering in its shoes. With what contempt they must regard us — a country that stands impotently by while its people are kidnapped and then does no more than bleat that it is ‘disturbed’.
"What on earth has happened to this country of ours, for so many centuries a byword for defending itself against attack, not least against piracy or acts of war on the high seas?"
Does anyone else in Britain think like her? I don't know if anyone in Britain or the U.S. for that matter can rival her in common sense.
I recommend reading the whole piece...and, everything else she writes.
Hot Air demonstrates Blair's weakness:
"'I hope we manage to get them (the Iranian government) to realize they have to release them,' Blair said in an interview with GMTV. "'If not, then this will move into a different phase.'"
He hopes? Why don't you MAKE THEM REALIZE IT?
CNN helps by playing dumb (emphasis mine):
"The female British sailor detained by Iran along with 14 male sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf last week said her crew 'trespassed' in Iranian waters, in comments broadcast Wednesday on Iranian television.
''Obviously we trespassed into their waters,' detainee Faye Turney said in video broadcast by Alalam, an Iranian Arabic language network.
"'They were very friendly, very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we'd been arrested. There was no aggression, no hurt, no harm. They were very, very compassionate,' Turney said.
"It was not known when the videotape was shot, or whether Turney, 26, was able to speak freely, since she is being held against her will."
I'm going to guess her statement was...not of free will. How quickly CNN forgets.
Here's what Tony Blair meant by "different phase", apparently:
"In a first act of retribution against Tehran, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett suspended bilateral talks with Tehran on all other issues. Visits by officials were stopped, issuing visas to Iranian officials suspended and British support for events such as trade missions put on hold, her office said."
I wonder what Britain will do after this doesn't work...
More on the Flying Imams
Remember them?
They are at it again! And they're suing the passengers on their flight. As if a reminder were needed, the Washington Times provides us with one anyway:
"The imams were removed from the flight after praying loudly in the gate area, speaking angrily about the war in Iraq and President Bush, not taking their assigned seats and requesting seat-belt extenders that were not necessary and that could be used as weapons, according to incident reports and officials interviewed by The Washington Times. "
And, here's why they're suing:
"Three of the imams said they 'noticed an older couple was sitting behind them and purposely turning around to watch the other plaintiffs as they prayed together' and that the man 'picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the plaintiffs pray,' according to the imams' lawsuit. "
So, they're suing an old couple for watching them pray...how quickly can this get dismissed?
Here's the text of the lawsuit, if you can bear to go through it.
Look at #4:
"Federal law expressly provides that an 'air carrier or foreign air carrier may not subject a person in air transportation to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, religion, sex, or ancestry."
First of all - someone should've edited this, because it says "religion" twice. Second, it doesn't say you can't discriminate based on crazy behavior - you know, like switching seats and asking for unnecessary seat belt extenders while bashing what is supposedly your country (as they are all U.S. residents). THAT is what the airline and the "John Does" did.
Interestingly, lawsuit point #25 says the imams bought round-trip tickets...there's dispute about that.
#33 says "At no time did Plaintiffs discuss politics or refer to Saddam Hussein or President Bush."
and #37 and #38 nail a John Doe!
"Upon information and belief, the gentleman ("John Doe") in the couple facing Plaintiffs at gate C9 picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray...Upon information and belief, Defendant John Doe moved to a corner near gate C9. While observing the Plaintiffs discreetly, he kept talking into his cellular phone."
What damning evidence that these imams should sue this "John Doe," who probably doesn't even know he's being sued.
Much of this lawsuit contradicts early reports of this case as well. Let's hope that nothing comes of it and we can drop the subject for good.
They are at it again! And they're suing the passengers on their flight. As if a reminder were needed, the Washington Times provides us with one anyway:
"The imams were removed from the flight after praying loudly in the gate area, speaking angrily about the war in Iraq and President Bush, not taking their assigned seats and requesting seat-belt extenders that were not necessary and that could be used as weapons, according to incident reports and officials interviewed by The Washington Times. "
And, here's why they're suing:
"Three of the imams said they 'noticed an older couple was sitting behind them and purposely turning around to watch the other plaintiffs as they prayed together' and that the man 'picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the plaintiffs pray,' according to the imams' lawsuit. "
So, they're suing an old couple for watching them pray...how quickly can this get dismissed?
Here's the text of the lawsuit, if you can bear to go through it.
Look at #4:
"Federal law expressly provides that an 'air carrier or foreign air carrier may not subject a person in air transportation to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, religion, sex, or ancestry."
First of all - someone should've edited this, because it says "religion" twice. Second, it doesn't say you can't discriminate based on crazy behavior - you know, like switching seats and asking for unnecessary seat belt extenders while bashing what is supposedly your country (as they are all U.S. residents). THAT is what the airline and the "John Does" did.
Interestingly, lawsuit point #25 says the imams bought round-trip tickets...there's dispute about that.
#33 says "At no time did Plaintiffs discuss politics or refer to Saddam Hussein or President Bush."
and #37 and #38 nail a John Doe!
"Upon information and belief, the gentleman ("John Doe") in the couple facing Plaintiffs at gate C9 picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray...Upon information and belief, Defendant John Doe moved to a corner near gate C9. While observing the Plaintiffs discreetly, he kept talking into his cellular phone."
What damning evidence that these imams should sue this "John Doe," who probably doesn't even know he's being sued.
Much of this lawsuit contradicts early reports of this case as well. Let's hope that nothing comes of it and we can drop the subject for good.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
New Bedford Sob Story...
Here's the New York Times Editorial which should have you outraged. Pay particular attention to the lede (emphasis mine):
"A screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation’s borders will be secure. Her mother and more than 300 other workers in a leather-goods factory in New Bedford, Mass., have been terrorized — subdued by guns and dogs, their children stranded at school — so that the country will notice that the Bush administration is serious about enforcing immigration laws. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of poor Americans, lacking the right citizenship papers, have been denied a doctor’s care so that not a penny of Medicaid will go to a sick illegal immigrant."
The GALL of the New York Times to insinuate that the Bush administration is "terrorizing" illegal immigrants just to get attention. The implication is also that these people who are "lacking the right citizenship papers" are doing everything they can to become legal citizens, but unfortunately haven't completed the process - who knows if that's true? And, I'm sorry, if they are "illegal immigrants", they cannot at the same time be "Americans"!
Bill O'Reilly, meanwhile, takes the NYT to task. He's at his best here (again, my emphasis):
"Wow. A screaming baby denied breast milk? So dehydrated she has to be hospitalized? Can this be happening in America?
"Well, it may not have happened.
"Because The Times editorial was so intense we decided to look into the situation. And guess what? There's some real problems with The Times' descriptions.
"Two babies were admitted to two New Bedford area hospitals shortly after the raid. A 7-month-old was taken to St. Vincent's where it was diagnosed with pneumonia and dehydration. And another baby was admitted to St. Luke's, also with pneumonia and dehydration. Both babies were accompanied by guardians and both were treated. If there's another baby in play, we can't find it.
"Of course, the immigration raid didn't cause the pneumonia, which most likely led to the dehydration. So the description used by The New York Times to demonize the Department of Homeland Security seems to be false.
"Now, we called the Times asking for clarification. They say they witnessed the event but can't provide any details. What hospital was the baby in? We suspect they looked at the Web site featuring an unidentified baby. We saw the same Web site, the same thing, and it proves nothing."
Deval Patrick is now feigning outrage over the whole matter, though it's clear that he knew about the raid beforehand. Now there's going to be a Congressional investigation! So much for enforcing the law...
Here's a thought: since all the illegals were flown out to Texas and separated from their children, instead of flying the illegals back here, why not fly the children out to the illegals? That way nobody can complain that "immigration raids split families."
Michael Graham sums it up much better than I could:
"...There are real costs to real Americans of refusing to enforce immigration laws. There are also real costs to the nations these illegals are fleeing. If your life is so lousy that you'd rather work in an American sweatshop than in your own country, your country must really, really suck.
"So why not stay there and fight for a better future? Why not work as hard to create jobs back home as you do to steal jobs here? If illegal immigrants truly are the ambitious, caring, community-minded folk their advocates insist, aren't they needed more in the backwards ratholes of Central and South America?"
Lastly, check out Froma Harrop's take for a fairly reasoned liberal perspective on this case.
"A screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation’s borders will be secure. Her mother and more than 300 other workers in a leather-goods factory in New Bedford, Mass., have been terrorized — subdued by guns and dogs, their children stranded at school — so that the country will notice that the Bush administration is serious about enforcing immigration laws. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of poor Americans, lacking the right citizenship papers, have been denied a doctor’s care so that not a penny of Medicaid will go to a sick illegal immigrant."
The GALL of the New York Times to insinuate that the Bush administration is "terrorizing" illegal immigrants just to get attention. The implication is also that these people who are "lacking the right citizenship papers" are doing everything they can to become legal citizens, but unfortunately haven't completed the process - who knows if that's true? And, I'm sorry, if they are "illegal immigrants", they cannot at the same time be "Americans"!
Bill O'Reilly, meanwhile, takes the NYT to task. He's at his best here (again, my emphasis):
"Wow. A screaming baby denied breast milk? So dehydrated she has to be hospitalized? Can this be happening in America?
"Well, it may not have happened.
"Because The Times editorial was so intense we decided to look into the situation. And guess what? There's some real problems with The Times' descriptions.
"Two babies were admitted to two New Bedford area hospitals shortly after the raid. A 7-month-old was taken to St. Vincent's where it was diagnosed with pneumonia and dehydration. And another baby was admitted to St. Luke's, also with pneumonia and dehydration. Both babies were accompanied by guardians and both were treated. If there's another baby in play, we can't find it.
"Of course, the immigration raid didn't cause the pneumonia, which most likely led to the dehydration. So the description used by The New York Times to demonize the Department of Homeland Security seems to be false.
"Now, we called the Times asking for clarification. They say they witnessed the event but can't provide any details. What hospital was the baby in? We suspect they looked at the Web site featuring an unidentified baby. We saw the same Web site, the same thing, and it proves nothing."
Deval Patrick is now feigning outrage over the whole matter, though it's clear that he knew about the raid beforehand. Now there's going to be a Congressional investigation! So much for enforcing the law...
Here's a thought: since all the illegals were flown out to Texas and separated from their children, instead of flying the illegals back here, why not fly the children out to the illegals? That way nobody can complain that "immigration raids split families."
Michael Graham sums it up much better than I could:
"...There are real costs to real Americans of refusing to enforce immigration laws. There are also real costs to the nations these illegals are fleeing. If your life is so lousy that you'd rather work in an American sweatshop than in your own country, your country must really, really suck.
"So why not stay there and fight for a better future? Why not work as hard to create jobs back home as you do to steal jobs here? If illegal immigrants truly are the ambitious, caring, community-minded folk their advocates insist, aren't they needed more in the backwards ratholes of Central and South America?"
Lastly, check out Froma Harrop's take for a fairly reasoned liberal perspective on this case.
Well, Well, Well...
...all charges to be dropped? ABOUT TIME.
I recommend LaShawn Barber for the most thorough analysis of the Duke Rape Case.
I recommend LaShawn Barber for the most thorough analysis of the Duke Rape Case.
Remember the "Buyback" Program?
Michelle Malkin's latest piece, "The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners," reminded of Boston Mayor Tom Menino's ridiculous "Gun Buyback" program and, although it took place some time ago, I feel the need to address it now.
The last attempt before 2006 at a "gun buyback" program in Boston took place in the mid 1990s. Those who turned in guns were given $50, no questions asked.
Guess what happened.
"Criminologists found that some people used the buyback money to buy newer guns."
Shocking!
To explain the city's "retooled" position on the gun buyback program - offering gift certificates rather than cash - police department spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll noted that it was "(the city's)responsibility to explore every possible avenue in our efforts to decrease violent crime."
Apparently, even those avenues that don't work - Mass Backwards explains why, with examples that include a Charlestown woman beaten in the face with a baseball bat.
This is not to say, however, that criminals need to become innovative now that they don't have their guns - why? Because they can just return their purchased items from Target, bought with their gift card for returning the gun, and get a full refund.
Here's the store's return policy: "We will issue a full refund for most items returned within 90 days in new condition, with the original receipt or packing slip, packaging and accessories."
I must say, quite convenient for those crafty criminals.
And Best Buy does the following: "Refund will be in the same form as original purchase. Exceptions: Cash, debit or check purchases over $250 will be refunded in the form of a mail check within 10 business days of return." Not sure if the "gift card" purchase would count as "debit" - so this is a bit unclear. But it seems doable to get cash back.
Since gun violence is up in the city as of late February 2007, with more murders seemingly reported every day, it seems as if Menino needs to go back to the drawing board.
Maybe abolishing the Second Amendment will work, Mumbles...
The last attempt before 2006 at a "gun buyback" program in Boston took place in the mid 1990s. Those who turned in guns were given $50, no questions asked.
Guess what happened.
"Criminologists found that some people used the buyback money to buy newer guns."
Shocking!
To explain the city's "retooled" position on the gun buyback program - offering gift certificates rather than cash - police department spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll noted that it was "(the city's)responsibility to explore every possible avenue in our efforts to decrease violent crime."
Apparently, even those avenues that don't work - Mass Backwards explains why, with examples that include a Charlestown woman beaten in the face with a baseball bat.
This is not to say, however, that criminals need to become innovative now that they don't have their guns - why? Because they can just return their purchased items from Target, bought with their gift card for returning the gun, and get a full refund.
Here's the store's return policy: "We will issue a full refund for most items returned within 90 days in new condition, with the original receipt or packing slip, packaging and accessories."
I must say, quite convenient for those crafty criminals.
And Best Buy does the following: "Refund will be in the same form as original purchase. Exceptions: Cash, debit or check purchases over $250 will be refunded in the form of a mail check within 10 business days of return." Not sure if the "gift card" purchase would count as "debit" - so this is a bit unclear. But it seems doable to get cash back.
Since gun violence is up in the city as of late February 2007, with more murders seemingly reported every day, it seems as if Menino needs to go back to the drawing board.
Maybe abolishing the Second Amendment will work, Mumbles...
If Edwards Isn't A "Faggot", Is Obama A "Negro"?
Apparently, according to the LA Times.
This has to be one of the weirdest articles I have ever read - I'm shocked that it was even published (though, on second thought, I shouldn't be - nothing should really come as "shocking" anymore...).
The article's main point is that not only is Barack Obama running for President of the United States, but he's also "running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the 'Magic Negro.'"
Not only a Negro - but a Magic Negro...fascinating!
Columnist David Ehrenstein draws the basis of his comparison from information off Wikipedia - a website which just recently reported that comic Sinbad was dead and describes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." And the history department at Middlebury College in Vermont has banned the use of Wikipedia in citations due to numerous errors.
So, though the information Ehrenstein presents may be accurate, it should, at the very least, be viewed skeptically. It also seems to be a lazy way to conduct research, given the known inaccuracies of the site.
But the two main problems I have with this piece really don't have to do much with its factual content, per se. One, Ehrenstein plays the "white guit" card when describing why whites would find Obama a desirable candidate. And two, its explicit use of the word "negro." Let's examine both reasons a bit more closely.
Ehrenstein characterizes "white America" as "desiring for a noble, healing Negro." Personally, I don't know what he's talking about. The implication here is that a white person who sides with Obama politically does so out of a longing to see a black person save the country (at least, I guess that's what he means). I would give Americans much more credit than that, believing that, if they support Obama, they do so absent of his race, but on his views...like universal health care, raising taxes on oil companies, raising minimum wage, more money for education, in favor of Roe v. Wade, immigration reform, etc...
Not that white people or anyone else should be supporting those ideals...
The second, and perhaps more major, issue I have with this article is the accepted use of the term "negro," - or, more accurately, the lack of objection to the term's usage from the Left.
What if Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or anyone else the Left despises said something like this? Or what if the Washington Times or even the Boston Herald published this "opinion" piece? Wouldn't there be demands for apologies (maybe from both sides, just like in Coulter's case of the use of the word "faggot")? Wouldn't they be branded racists? Wouldn't it point to the continued lack of intolerance in this country for minorities? Wouldn't it point to the HATE the Right feels for anyone/thing that isn't White, Christian, Pro-Gun, Anti-Illeglas, etc???
The hyprocisy is what's outrageous here. The fact that there is no outrage for this from the left exactly makes the point that the Left doesn't care if someone is racist, homophobic, or anything else...the Left only cares if you're CONSERVATIVE.
Then, watch your back.
This has to be one of the weirdest articles I have ever read - I'm shocked that it was even published (though, on second thought, I shouldn't be - nothing should really come as "shocking" anymore...).
The article's main point is that not only is Barack Obama running for President of the United States, but he's also "running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the 'Magic Negro.'"
Not only a Negro - but a Magic Negro...fascinating!
Columnist David Ehrenstein draws the basis of his comparison from information off Wikipedia - a website which just recently reported that comic Sinbad was dead and describes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." And the history department at Middlebury College in Vermont has banned the use of Wikipedia in citations due to numerous errors.
So, though the information Ehrenstein presents may be accurate, it should, at the very least, be viewed skeptically. It also seems to be a lazy way to conduct research, given the known inaccuracies of the site.
But the two main problems I have with this piece really don't have to do much with its factual content, per se. One, Ehrenstein plays the "white guit" card when describing why whites would find Obama a desirable candidate. And two, its explicit use of the word "negro." Let's examine both reasons a bit more closely.
Ehrenstein characterizes "white America" as "desiring for a noble, healing Negro." Personally, I don't know what he's talking about. The implication here is that a white person who sides with Obama politically does so out of a longing to see a black person save the country (at least, I guess that's what he means). I would give Americans much more credit than that, believing that, if they support Obama, they do so absent of his race, but on his views...like universal health care, raising taxes on oil companies, raising minimum wage, more money for education, in favor of Roe v. Wade, immigration reform, etc...
Not that white people or anyone else should be supporting those ideals...
The second, and perhaps more major, issue I have with this article is the accepted use of the term "negro," - or, more accurately, the lack of objection to the term's usage from the Left.
What if Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or anyone else the Left despises said something like this? Or what if the Washington Times or even the Boston Herald published this "opinion" piece? Wouldn't there be demands for apologies (maybe from both sides, just like in Coulter's case of the use of the word "faggot")? Wouldn't they be branded racists? Wouldn't it point to the continued lack of intolerance in this country for minorities? Wouldn't it point to the HATE the Right feels for anyone/thing that isn't White, Christian, Pro-Gun, Anti-Illeglas, etc???
The hyprocisy is what's outrageous here. The fact that there is no outrage for this from the left exactly makes the point that the Left doesn't care if someone is racist, homophobic, or anything else...the Left only cares if you're CONSERVATIVE.
Then, watch your back.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Break For Some Madness...
Time to take a break from all this politics and talk about another passion of mine, college basketball.
I'll preface this entry by letting all readers know that I graduated from HOLY CROSS in 2003, so some bias may sneak in to the analysis...but that's to be expected. Needless to say I'm very excited about our chances and you'll see it below.
I'll try to highlight what I think could be key matchups in each game, plus pick a winner. You'll be able to see every pick.
First, though, a discussion of the "bubble teams."
The last 4 teams to get into the field of 65 were (presumably) Stanford, Illinois, Old Dominion, and Arkansas. The first four teams out were, in my opinion (and in this order): Drexel, Syracuse, Air Force, and Florida State. I'd have to say the next four were Missouri State, Kansas State, West Virginia, and then any number of teams (Clemson, Bradley, Ok St. etc).
I think the committee pretty much botched these last few spots. Here are the profiles of the last 4 teams.
Stanford (6th in Pac 10: 18-12, 10-8)
GOOD WINS: Texas Tech, at Fresno St., at Virginia, Washington St., USC, UCLA, Oregon (by 19)
BAD WINS: San Jose St., Denver, UC Davis, and Northwestern - programs that combined for 27 wins...14 schools in the field have at least that many.
BAD LOSSES: bubble team Air Force (by 34), Santa Clara (by 16), Cal, Washington
RPI: 63 - worst of the At Large field
Illinois (4th in Big 10: 23-11, 9-7)
GOOD WINS: tournament teams Jackson St., Miami (OH), Belmont, Florida A&M (this is STRETCHING their non-conference schedule), Michigan St., Indiana (2)
BAD WINS: nobody's really terrible, except Savannah St., that I can see
BAD LOSSES: most damaging loss was Purdue (by 17)...after that, to Michigan
RPI: 29
Old Dominion (2nd in CAA: 24-8, 15-3)
GOOD WINS: at Georgetown (by 13), Drexel (2, once by 27), at Toledo (BracketBusters), VCU
BAD WINS: naturally, the bottom feeders of their conference, plus SC St. and Richmond
BAD LOSSES: at James Madison, at Va Tech (by 17), George Mason (by 16)
RPI: 40
Arkansas (4th in SEC West: 21-13, 7-9)
GOOD WINS: at Southern Illinois, West Virginia, Oral Roberts, Alabama (by 27), Vanderbilt (2, once by 15)
BAD WINS: Missouri-Kansas City, SE MO St., La Tech, Stephen F. Austin...etc, etc, etc...
BAD LOSSES: at Missouri (by 22), Texas Tech (by 16), at Mississippi St. (by 24), Auburn, South Carolina
RPI: 35 (somehow, their Strength of Schedule is 10 - apparently that's just a formula I don't understand)
Clearly, Arkansas has the worst profile of the 4. I was really shocked to see Stanford get in with that crazy RPI, but they do have a lot of good wins despite the bad losses. So I think I would've bumped Arkansas and Old Dominion out, replacing them with Drexel and Syracuse. Syracuse also beat Georgetown and their conference play was much tougher than Old Dominion's, so I give them the nod. And Drexel gets the nod over Arkansas as the last team in because of their 13 road wins, including beating Syracuse, Villanova, and Creighton.
Time for the brackets!
MIDWEST REGION:
ROUND 1
Florida v. Jackson St.: Everyone talks about Florida's big men, but the two key players for me on this team are Corey Brewer and Taurean Green. If they play well during the tournament, Florida should be fine.
PICK - Florida
Arizona v. Purdue: The question in this game will be which Arizona team will show up - the one ranked preseason #10, or the one that didn't show up for games against UNC, UCLA, and Oregon. This Arizona team has the ability to hurt people (see: UNLV, Louisville, Memphis) and should get it done early against a Purdue team that has a tendency to blow out or be blown out (check out the crazy scores of most of their games). Despite the ability of Carl Landry, Arizona's too talented to let a Purdue squad many thought were closer to the bubble get close to them. I predict a rout.
PICK - Arizona
Butler v. Old Dominion: It's always tough for a team like Old Dominion trying to prove they "belong" in the tournament - but it becomes tougher when you go against a squad who knows exactly how you feel. Butler started off the season beating Notre Dame, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee and Gonzaga within the span of 11 days. They don't need to prove anything to anyone anymore. If A.J. Graves can get his act together and play like he did during most of the season, it's Butler in a blowout.
PICK - Butler
Maryland v. Davidson: The key throughout the tournament for Maryland will be the play of their big men: James Gist, Ekene Ibewke, and Bambale Osby. If they can neutralize big men from other teams, combined with the leadership of senior backcourt mates D.J. Strawberry and Mike Jones, this team could be very, very dangerous. Many people may like Davidson in a spoiler role because of their gaudy record and no bad losses on the season, but Davidson really can't defend anybody. Maryland will pull away in this one after a tight first half.
PICK - Maryland
Notre Dame v. Winthrop: Talk about a team with no bad losses - Winthrop lost to UNC, Maryland, Wisconsin (in OT), and Texas A&M. THAT'S IT. Problem is, their best wins were Mississippi St. and Missouri St. (BracketBusters - which did likely end Missouri St.'s chance at a bid) Notre Dame beat Maryland, Villanova, and Marquette during the season, and got better as the season moved along. This could be the highest scoring game of the tournament, but I just like Notre Dame's offense better. I feel like this was a bad matchup for Winthrop, as Notre Dame has the ability to outscore just about anyone.
PICK - Notre Dame
Oregon v. Miami (OH): Are you kidding me?
PICK - Oregon
UNLV v. Georgia Tech: The committee gave us a great matchup here. UNLV flew under the radar most of the season despite their gaudy RPI (which now sits at 10, ahead of Kansas, Texas A&M, Texas, and a slew of other teams OUTSIDE the Big 12) and beat Nevada, Texas Tech, Air Force, and BYU. Plus their 3 guard lineup might be Georgia Tech's worst nightmare, considering Tech's strengths are quickness and depth (Paul Hewitt will go at least 10 deep in the first ten minutes of the game). This has the makings of an absolute classic, but if Tech can play a lick of defense, I think they'll eke it out.
PICK - Georgia Tech
Wisconsin v. Texas A&M/Corpus Christi: Wisconsin desperately needed an easy first rounder and they got it.
PICK - Wisconsin
ROUND 2
Florida v. Arizona: These teams are much more similar than people may think. Florida wasn't tested in the SEC tournament and now everyone says they're "back" after a February swoon. Both these teams have looked downright awful and absolutely spectacular this season...for that reason, I'm going with the huge upset. I think Shakur and Radenovic, as seniors, will finally show the fire that Lute Olson has been waiting for for four years. Freshman J.P. Hill will also have to come up huge to go against Florida's bigs.
PICK - Arizona
Butler v. Maryland: Maryland's bigs will have to get out on the perimeter to defend Butler's bigger shooters, and they have the athleticism to do so.
PICK - Maryland
Notre Dame v. Oregon: Another high scoring affair. This one's a nail biter where Aaron Brooks, maybe the "third" most clutch player in the country (Acie Law, Drew Neitzel) wins it for them.
PICK - Oregon
Georgia Tech v. Wisconsin: Because of their depth, Tech should be able to run Wisconsin off the court. The loss of Brian Butch kills the Badgers, plus Taylor and Flowers can't be expected to carry the burden against all that quickness of the Yellow Jackets. I predict Alando Tucker has an off-night and falls out of contention for player of the year.
PICK - Georgia Tech
SWEET 16
Arizona v. Maryland: Despite time to rest, Arizona will have done enough by beating Florida to call the year a success. They will revert to form and Maryland will throttle them.
PICK - Maryland
Oregon v. Georgia Tech: Georgia Tech will have to score more points in this game to beat the Ducks than they will have to against UNLV and Wisconsin. They won't have the punch to get it done.
PICK - Oregon
ELITE 8
Maryland v. Oregon: Oregon will have all sorts of problems with Maryland's size and will have to rely exclusively on outside shooting to win. One only needs to look at the 19 point loss to Stanford as an indication that Oregon has trouble with size. Maryland can move on if Strawberry and Jones can neutralize Brooks and company.
PICK - Maryland
WEST REGION
ROUND 1
Kansas v. Niagra: Niagra will win the playoff game. Their reward? Losing to Kansas by 54.
PICK - Kansas
Kentucky v. Villanova: Considering that Tubby Smith's job no longer is in jeopardy, I just get the feeling that his Wildcats will fold in this one. Randolph Morris looks bored half the time and Ramel Bradley and Joe Crawford have to be the two streakiest players in the country. I just don't think this Kentucky team is that good despite their RPI, and Villanova has the size with Curtis Sumpter and the quickness with Scottie Reynolds to win this one. It may be close for a bit but Villanova should win fairly handily.
PICK - Villanova
Virginia Tech v. Illinois: For a team that's offensively challenged, Virginia Tech is a bad draw for the Fighting Illini. Warren Carter and Shaun Pruitt are nice enough players, but this team can go through some scoring droughts (41 total points v. Wisconsin, 44 v. Ohio St., 47 v. Purdue, 48 v. N'Western in a win) and Tech has the athleticism to blow them out.
PICK - Virginia Tech
Southern Illinois v. Holy Cross: The Crusaders could not have asked for a better matchup. Southern Illinois' slow-down style mimics Holy Cross', so this game will likely end up in the 50's. The Salukis have won many games by controlling tempo, but if the game can go a bit quicker (like their matchup with Indiana) than their comfort zone, they can be beaten. With Torey Thomas and Keith Simmons, Holy Cross has the ability to do just that.
PICK - Holy Cross
Duke v. VCU: People are calling for an upset here, too. What people overlook about Duke, however, is that they beat who they are supposed to beat. Bad news is, they are coming in off their second losing streak of at least three games this year. But Gerald Henderson is back, and if Coach K can get some production out of his bench, it should be business as usual.
PICK - Duke
Pittsburgh v. Wright State: Don't I have to pick against Pitt after having them in my Final Four last year, only to see them lose to Bradley - the LAST team to get in?
Yes.
I don't know anything about Wright State other than they beat Butler twice. Pitt showed it has trouble scoring yet again this year in the finale against G'Town. Everyone's looking forward to a Ben Howland reunion party in the Sweet 16. It ain't gonna happen.
PICK - Wright State
Indiana v. Gonzaga: This game really doesn't matter because the winner will get thrashed by UCLA in the second round. Logic would say go for the upset and hope to grab the points with the Zags, but I think D.J. White will be too much for the Zags to handle. Despite beating UNC and Texas, these are not your father's Bulldgos.
PICK - Indiana
UCLA v. Weber St: I truly believe this UCLA team is the best team in the country. They have an emerging star at the point in Darren Collison, a first team All-American in Aaron Afflalo, and enough outside shooting and inside size to win the whole thing. Weber St. will be no problem.
PICK - UCLA
ROUND 2:
Kansas v. Villanova: I think Kansas can get by Villanova on talent alone. This Villanova team is not as good as last year's, plus Kansas will (or, should) have a chip on its shoulder after some early flameouts the last couple years (Bradley, Bucknell). Villanova is basically a weaker version of Kansas, with good depth and quick players, but they can't score like Kansas can. It will be close for a while but Kansas should pull away from what amounts to an inferior team.
PICK - Kansas
Virginia Tech v. Holy Cross: The Crusaders can get it done against the Hokies provided that the Hokies team that shows up is the one that lost to Marshall, not the one that beat UNC twice.
I'm betting on the former.
PICK - Holy Cross
Duke v. Wright State: Again, Duke has a history of beating teams it should beat. They welcome the chance to play Wright State rather than bang around with Pitt for 40 minutes. The new opponent will do them well.
PICK - Duke
Indiana v. UCLA: Despite the fact that Indiana is playing better team defense, UCLA will have too much firepower. Kelvin Sampson's first year in Bloomington will remind people of Mike Davis.
PICK - UCLA
SWEET 16:
Kansas v. Holy Cross: This is where the slipper comes off. Holy Cross puts forth a game effort, but Brandon Rush and Co. will just have too much talent.
PICK - Kansas
Duke v. UCLA: Edge to UCLA off the bat for the game being in San Jose. After winning two fairly routine games, Duke will have its hands full in this one. It's relative lack of depth will be exposed and Josh McRoberts won't be able to carry the load as a sophomore. UCLA will pull away in this one.
PICK - UCLA
ELITE 8:
Kansas v. UCLA: The de facto national championship, as far as I'm concerned. Kansas' resiliency will shine through, but their lack of a go-to player may come to hurt them here as Aaron Afflalo steps it up.
PICK - UCLA
EAST REGION
ROUND 1:
UNC v. Eastern Kentucky: UNC starts its title drive with Eastern Kentucky. It's a good thing, because it gets much tougher. Enjoy it while you can.
PICK - UNC
Marquette v. Michigan State: Arguably the toughest first round match of the whole tournament. Marquette seems underseeded and when Dominic James isn't mired in his sophomore slump, the Golden Eagles can hang with anyone - just ask Texas Tech, Pitt, Duke, and Louisville. But James has hit a real bad shooting slump which started about 10 games ago and hasn't snapped out of it. If Travis Walton can lock him up, and they get enough scoring from Drew Neitzel and rapidly improving Raymar Morgan (remember the name), that should be enough for the Spartans to move on.
PICK - Michigan State
USC v. Arkansas: All I know is that somebody is going to blow out somebody in this game. Neither team is all that good, but Arkansas doesn't even deserve to be here. I'm going with the Trojans.
PICK - USC
Texas v. New Mexico State: People think Texas is infallible because of Kevin Durant, but they have some REALLY close wins that don't impress (St. John's by 1, LSU by 1, Arkansas by 4, Nebraska by 1, Baylor THREE TIMES, all 5 points or less)...of course, the bottom line is, Texas won those games. Look for a similar contest against a pesky Aggies team and watch all your friends sweat it out.
PICK - Texas
Vanderbilt v. George Washington: Despite an NIT profile (no other good wins other than Virginia Tech), George Washington is not a bad team. They come in winning 8 in a row and get good guard play with a deep rotation, led by Maureece Rice. Vanderbilt is likely the most overrated seed in the tournament (losing to FURMAN???) but they got lucky in that GW probably shouldn't have been an 11. Vanderbilt also plays a deep rotation and will have the best player on the floor in UVA transfer Derrick Byars, which should make the difference.
PICK - Vanderbilt
Washington State v. Oral Roberts: I wonder if Washington State is a young team which peaked too early. They finished 2nd in the Pac 10 but didn't beat UCLA or Oregon, which, to me, really puts them third. Oral Roberts has the best player in the country you've never heard of in Caleb Green, plus another 2,000 point scorer in Ken Tutt. Can't two players carry you for one game in the Big Dance? They played pretty well last year against Memphis and are a better team this year.
PICK - Oral Roberts
Boston College v. Texas Tech: BC has lost 5 of 7 down the stretch, while Texas Tech got blown out in the Big 12 quarters. So who do you pick when neither team wants to win? BC lost to Vermont, Providence, Duquesne (!), Clemson by 20, and their last 3 losses have been blowouts. Texas Tech played a much tougher non-conference (Marquette, Air Force, Stanford, Arkansas, UNLV) and showed it can beat the big teams. BC's loss to UNC showed that the most important player to that team is not Jared Dudley, but Tyrese Rice. If Jarrius Jackson covers him, it's lights out.
PICK - Texas Tech
Georgetown v. Belmont: Georgetown has a much easier ride than its counterpart at the top of the bracket, and it starts with Belmont.
PICK - Georgetown
ROUND 2:
North Carolina v. Michigan State: This won't be as difficult as one might think. UNC averaged 86.3 points per game this year. Michigan State averaged 65.1 versus worse competition. Look for the score to be about that.
PICK - North Carolina
USC v. Texas: USC had no real non-conference heft outside of Kansas (and beating Wichita St. doesn't count - unless you want to count losing to Kansas St.) so this team is hard to judge. Like I said, I don't think they're very good, and overall I think Texas' talent will carry them. An easier game for Texas here than in the first round.
PICK - Texas
Vanderbilt v. Oral Roberts: Vandy should benefit from the upset here. The teams match up fairly well but Vanderbilt can score a bit better. Oral Roberts will need someone other than Green and Tutt to step up to pull off another upset, but Vandy's balance should be too much.
PICK - Vanderbilt
Texas Tech v. Georgetown: I'm not sure Texas Tech has the strength and size to compete with Green and Hibbert of Georgetown. The loss of BC's Williams will enable Tech to sneak one win, but two physical teams in a row might be too much.
PICK - Georgetown
SWEET 16:
North Carolina v. Texas: Both teams are extremely young, but both are so experienced by this point. Texas has shown it has a killer instinct when they beat the assassin himself, Acie Law, and A&M in overtime recently. However, UNC will be able to give Durant more looks than he's seen all year because of their depth, and that should give them the edge.
PICK - North Carolina
Vanderbilt v. Georgetown: These two teams squared off in November, with Georgetown winning by 16. And Georgetown got better. Yikes.
PICK - Georgetown
ELITE 8:
North Carolina v. Georgetown: The one thing UNC can do is handle Georgetown's size, and they'll be the first team to be able to do so. With Tyler Hansbrough, Brandan Wright, Deon Thompson, and Alex Stepheson, the Tar Heels could counter Hibbert and Green. With their better perimeter game led by Wayne Ellington and role player (again, for the second time) Reyshawn Terry, UNC should prevail.
PICK - North Carolina
SOUTH REGION
Ohio State v. Central Connecticut State: Honestly, Ohio State couldn't have asked for a better first round matchup. The "other" Blue Devlis put pressure on the ball and can create turnovers that lead to easy buckets. If Ohio State's wing players don't help the backcourt bring the ball up, they could be vulnerable to CCSU's patented press and...
...okay, I'm kidding. Ohio State's going to kill them. Central Connecticut lost to St. Bonaventure this year.
'Nuff said.
PICK - Ohio State
I'll preface this entry by letting all readers know that I graduated from HOLY CROSS in 2003, so some bias may sneak in to the analysis...but that's to be expected. Needless to say I'm very excited about our chances and you'll see it below.
I'll try to highlight what I think could be key matchups in each game, plus pick a winner. You'll be able to see every pick.
First, though, a discussion of the "bubble teams."
The last 4 teams to get into the field of 65 were (presumably) Stanford, Illinois, Old Dominion, and Arkansas. The first four teams out were, in my opinion (and in this order): Drexel, Syracuse, Air Force, and Florida State. I'd have to say the next four were Missouri State, Kansas State, West Virginia, and then any number of teams (Clemson, Bradley, Ok St. etc).
I think the committee pretty much botched these last few spots. Here are the profiles of the last 4 teams.
Stanford (6th in Pac 10: 18-12, 10-8)
GOOD WINS: Texas Tech, at Fresno St., at Virginia, Washington St., USC, UCLA, Oregon (by 19)
BAD WINS: San Jose St., Denver, UC Davis, and Northwestern - programs that combined for 27 wins...14 schools in the field have at least that many.
BAD LOSSES: bubble team Air Force (by 34), Santa Clara (by 16), Cal, Washington
RPI: 63 - worst of the At Large field
Illinois (4th in Big 10: 23-11, 9-7)
GOOD WINS: tournament teams Jackson St., Miami (OH), Belmont, Florida A&M (this is STRETCHING their non-conference schedule), Michigan St., Indiana (2)
BAD WINS: nobody's really terrible, except Savannah St., that I can see
BAD LOSSES: most damaging loss was Purdue (by 17)...after that, to Michigan
RPI: 29
Old Dominion (2nd in CAA: 24-8, 15-3)
GOOD WINS: at Georgetown (by 13), Drexel (2, once by 27), at Toledo (BracketBusters), VCU
BAD WINS: naturally, the bottom feeders of their conference, plus SC St. and Richmond
BAD LOSSES: at James Madison, at Va Tech (by 17), George Mason (by 16)
RPI: 40
Arkansas (4th in SEC West: 21-13, 7-9)
GOOD WINS: at Southern Illinois, West Virginia, Oral Roberts, Alabama (by 27), Vanderbilt (2, once by 15)
BAD WINS: Missouri-Kansas City, SE MO St., La Tech, Stephen F. Austin...etc, etc, etc...
BAD LOSSES: at Missouri (by 22), Texas Tech (by 16), at Mississippi St. (by 24), Auburn, South Carolina
RPI: 35 (somehow, their Strength of Schedule is 10 - apparently that's just a formula I don't understand)
Clearly, Arkansas has the worst profile of the 4. I was really shocked to see Stanford get in with that crazy RPI, but they do have a lot of good wins despite the bad losses. So I think I would've bumped Arkansas and Old Dominion out, replacing them with Drexel and Syracuse. Syracuse also beat Georgetown and their conference play was much tougher than Old Dominion's, so I give them the nod. And Drexel gets the nod over Arkansas as the last team in because of their 13 road wins, including beating Syracuse, Villanova, and Creighton.
Time for the brackets!
MIDWEST REGION:
ROUND 1
Florida v. Jackson St.: Everyone talks about Florida's big men, but the two key players for me on this team are Corey Brewer and Taurean Green. If they play well during the tournament, Florida should be fine.
PICK - Florida
Arizona v. Purdue: The question in this game will be which Arizona team will show up - the one ranked preseason #10, or the one that didn't show up for games against UNC, UCLA, and Oregon. This Arizona team has the ability to hurt people (see: UNLV, Louisville, Memphis) and should get it done early against a Purdue team that has a tendency to blow out or be blown out (check out the crazy scores of most of their games). Despite the ability of Carl Landry, Arizona's too talented to let a Purdue squad many thought were closer to the bubble get close to them. I predict a rout.
PICK - Arizona
Butler v. Old Dominion: It's always tough for a team like Old Dominion trying to prove they "belong" in the tournament - but it becomes tougher when you go against a squad who knows exactly how you feel. Butler started off the season beating Notre Dame, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee and Gonzaga within the span of 11 days. They don't need to prove anything to anyone anymore. If A.J. Graves can get his act together and play like he did during most of the season, it's Butler in a blowout.
PICK - Butler
Maryland v. Davidson: The key throughout the tournament for Maryland will be the play of their big men: James Gist, Ekene Ibewke, and Bambale Osby. If they can neutralize big men from other teams, combined with the leadership of senior backcourt mates D.J. Strawberry and Mike Jones, this team could be very, very dangerous. Many people may like Davidson in a spoiler role because of their gaudy record and no bad losses on the season, but Davidson really can't defend anybody. Maryland will pull away in this one after a tight first half.
PICK - Maryland
Notre Dame v. Winthrop: Talk about a team with no bad losses - Winthrop lost to UNC, Maryland, Wisconsin (in OT), and Texas A&M. THAT'S IT. Problem is, their best wins were Mississippi St. and Missouri St. (BracketBusters - which did likely end Missouri St.'s chance at a bid) Notre Dame beat Maryland, Villanova, and Marquette during the season, and got better as the season moved along. This could be the highest scoring game of the tournament, but I just like Notre Dame's offense better. I feel like this was a bad matchup for Winthrop, as Notre Dame has the ability to outscore just about anyone.
PICK - Notre Dame
Oregon v. Miami (OH): Are you kidding me?
PICK - Oregon
UNLV v. Georgia Tech: The committee gave us a great matchup here. UNLV flew under the radar most of the season despite their gaudy RPI (which now sits at 10, ahead of Kansas, Texas A&M, Texas, and a slew of other teams OUTSIDE the Big 12) and beat Nevada, Texas Tech, Air Force, and BYU. Plus their 3 guard lineup might be Georgia Tech's worst nightmare, considering Tech's strengths are quickness and depth (Paul Hewitt will go at least 10 deep in the first ten minutes of the game). This has the makings of an absolute classic, but if Tech can play a lick of defense, I think they'll eke it out.
PICK - Georgia Tech
Wisconsin v. Texas A&M/Corpus Christi: Wisconsin desperately needed an easy first rounder and they got it.
PICK - Wisconsin
ROUND 2
Florida v. Arizona: These teams are much more similar than people may think. Florida wasn't tested in the SEC tournament and now everyone says they're "back" after a February swoon. Both these teams have looked downright awful and absolutely spectacular this season...for that reason, I'm going with the huge upset. I think Shakur and Radenovic, as seniors, will finally show the fire that Lute Olson has been waiting for for four years. Freshman J.P. Hill will also have to come up huge to go against Florida's bigs.
PICK - Arizona
Butler v. Maryland: Maryland's bigs will have to get out on the perimeter to defend Butler's bigger shooters, and they have the athleticism to do so.
PICK - Maryland
Notre Dame v. Oregon: Another high scoring affair. This one's a nail biter where Aaron Brooks, maybe the "third" most clutch player in the country (Acie Law, Drew Neitzel) wins it for them.
PICK - Oregon
Georgia Tech v. Wisconsin: Because of their depth, Tech should be able to run Wisconsin off the court. The loss of Brian Butch kills the Badgers, plus Taylor and Flowers can't be expected to carry the burden against all that quickness of the Yellow Jackets. I predict Alando Tucker has an off-night and falls out of contention for player of the year.
PICK - Georgia Tech
SWEET 16
Arizona v. Maryland: Despite time to rest, Arizona will have done enough by beating Florida to call the year a success. They will revert to form and Maryland will throttle them.
PICK - Maryland
Oregon v. Georgia Tech: Georgia Tech will have to score more points in this game to beat the Ducks than they will have to against UNLV and Wisconsin. They won't have the punch to get it done.
PICK - Oregon
ELITE 8
Maryland v. Oregon: Oregon will have all sorts of problems with Maryland's size and will have to rely exclusively on outside shooting to win. One only needs to look at the 19 point loss to Stanford as an indication that Oregon has trouble with size. Maryland can move on if Strawberry and Jones can neutralize Brooks and company.
PICK - Maryland
WEST REGION
ROUND 1
Kansas v. Niagra: Niagra will win the playoff game. Their reward? Losing to Kansas by 54.
PICK - Kansas
Kentucky v. Villanova: Considering that Tubby Smith's job no longer is in jeopardy, I just get the feeling that his Wildcats will fold in this one. Randolph Morris looks bored half the time and Ramel Bradley and Joe Crawford have to be the two streakiest players in the country. I just don't think this Kentucky team is that good despite their RPI, and Villanova has the size with Curtis Sumpter and the quickness with Scottie Reynolds to win this one. It may be close for a bit but Villanova should win fairly handily.
PICK - Villanova
Virginia Tech v. Illinois: For a team that's offensively challenged, Virginia Tech is a bad draw for the Fighting Illini. Warren Carter and Shaun Pruitt are nice enough players, but this team can go through some scoring droughts (41 total points v. Wisconsin, 44 v. Ohio St., 47 v. Purdue, 48 v. N'Western in a win) and Tech has the athleticism to blow them out.
PICK - Virginia Tech
Southern Illinois v. Holy Cross: The Crusaders could not have asked for a better matchup. Southern Illinois' slow-down style mimics Holy Cross', so this game will likely end up in the 50's. The Salukis have won many games by controlling tempo, but if the game can go a bit quicker (like their matchup with Indiana) than their comfort zone, they can be beaten. With Torey Thomas and Keith Simmons, Holy Cross has the ability to do just that.
PICK - Holy Cross
Duke v. VCU: People are calling for an upset here, too. What people overlook about Duke, however, is that they beat who they are supposed to beat. Bad news is, they are coming in off their second losing streak of at least three games this year. But Gerald Henderson is back, and if Coach K can get some production out of his bench, it should be business as usual.
PICK - Duke
Pittsburgh v. Wright State: Don't I have to pick against Pitt after having them in my Final Four last year, only to see them lose to Bradley - the LAST team to get in?
Yes.
I don't know anything about Wright State other than they beat Butler twice. Pitt showed it has trouble scoring yet again this year in the finale against G'Town. Everyone's looking forward to a Ben Howland reunion party in the Sweet 16. It ain't gonna happen.
PICK - Wright State
Indiana v. Gonzaga: This game really doesn't matter because the winner will get thrashed by UCLA in the second round. Logic would say go for the upset and hope to grab the points with the Zags, but I think D.J. White will be too much for the Zags to handle. Despite beating UNC and Texas, these are not your father's Bulldgos.
PICK - Indiana
UCLA v. Weber St: I truly believe this UCLA team is the best team in the country. They have an emerging star at the point in Darren Collison, a first team All-American in Aaron Afflalo, and enough outside shooting and inside size to win the whole thing. Weber St. will be no problem.
PICK - UCLA
ROUND 2:
Kansas v. Villanova: I think Kansas can get by Villanova on talent alone. This Villanova team is not as good as last year's, plus Kansas will (or, should) have a chip on its shoulder after some early flameouts the last couple years (Bradley, Bucknell). Villanova is basically a weaker version of Kansas, with good depth and quick players, but they can't score like Kansas can. It will be close for a while but Kansas should pull away from what amounts to an inferior team.
PICK - Kansas
Virginia Tech v. Holy Cross: The Crusaders can get it done against the Hokies provided that the Hokies team that shows up is the one that lost to Marshall, not the one that beat UNC twice.
I'm betting on the former.
PICK - Holy Cross
Duke v. Wright State: Again, Duke has a history of beating teams it should beat. They welcome the chance to play Wright State rather than bang around with Pitt for 40 minutes. The new opponent will do them well.
PICK - Duke
Indiana v. UCLA: Despite the fact that Indiana is playing better team defense, UCLA will have too much firepower. Kelvin Sampson's first year in Bloomington will remind people of Mike Davis.
PICK - UCLA
SWEET 16:
Kansas v. Holy Cross: This is where the slipper comes off. Holy Cross puts forth a game effort, but Brandon Rush and Co. will just have too much talent.
PICK - Kansas
Duke v. UCLA: Edge to UCLA off the bat for the game being in San Jose. After winning two fairly routine games, Duke will have its hands full in this one. It's relative lack of depth will be exposed and Josh McRoberts won't be able to carry the load as a sophomore. UCLA will pull away in this one.
PICK - UCLA
ELITE 8:
Kansas v. UCLA: The de facto national championship, as far as I'm concerned. Kansas' resiliency will shine through, but their lack of a go-to player may come to hurt them here as Aaron Afflalo steps it up.
PICK - UCLA
EAST REGION
ROUND 1:
UNC v. Eastern Kentucky: UNC starts its title drive with Eastern Kentucky. It's a good thing, because it gets much tougher. Enjoy it while you can.
PICK - UNC
Marquette v. Michigan State: Arguably the toughest first round match of the whole tournament. Marquette seems underseeded and when Dominic James isn't mired in his sophomore slump, the Golden Eagles can hang with anyone - just ask Texas Tech, Pitt, Duke, and Louisville. But James has hit a real bad shooting slump which started about 10 games ago and hasn't snapped out of it. If Travis Walton can lock him up, and they get enough scoring from Drew Neitzel and rapidly improving Raymar Morgan (remember the name), that should be enough for the Spartans to move on.
PICK - Michigan State
USC v. Arkansas: All I know is that somebody is going to blow out somebody in this game. Neither team is all that good, but Arkansas doesn't even deserve to be here. I'm going with the Trojans.
PICK - USC
Texas v. New Mexico State: People think Texas is infallible because of Kevin Durant, but they have some REALLY close wins that don't impress (St. John's by 1, LSU by 1, Arkansas by 4, Nebraska by 1, Baylor THREE TIMES, all 5 points or less)...of course, the bottom line is, Texas won those games. Look for a similar contest against a pesky Aggies team and watch all your friends sweat it out.
PICK - Texas
Vanderbilt v. George Washington: Despite an NIT profile (no other good wins other than Virginia Tech), George Washington is not a bad team. They come in winning 8 in a row and get good guard play with a deep rotation, led by Maureece Rice. Vanderbilt is likely the most overrated seed in the tournament (losing to FURMAN???) but they got lucky in that GW probably shouldn't have been an 11. Vanderbilt also plays a deep rotation and will have the best player on the floor in UVA transfer Derrick Byars, which should make the difference.
PICK - Vanderbilt
Washington State v. Oral Roberts: I wonder if Washington State is a young team which peaked too early. They finished 2nd in the Pac 10 but didn't beat UCLA or Oregon, which, to me, really puts them third. Oral Roberts has the best player in the country you've never heard of in Caleb Green, plus another 2,000 point scorer in Ken Tutt. Can't two players carry you for one game in the Big Dance? They played pretty well last year against Memphis and are a better team this year.
PICK - Oral Roberts
Boston College v. Texas Tech: BC has lost 5 of 7 down the stretch, while Texas Tech got blown out in the Big 12 quarters. So who do you pick when neither team wants to win? BC lost to Vermont, Providence, Duquesne (!), Clemson by 20, and their last 3 losses have been blowouts. Texas Tech played a much tougher non-conference (Marquette, Air Force, Stanford, Arkansas, UNLV) and showed it can beat the big teams. BC's loss to UNC showed that the most important player to that team is not Jared Dudley, but Tyrese Rice. If Jarrius Jackson covers him, it's lights out.
PICK - Texas Tech
Georgetown v. Belmont: Georgetown has a much easier ride than its counterpart at the top of the bracket, and it starts with Belmont.
PICK - Georgetown
ROUND 2:
North Carolina v. Michigan State: This won't be as difficult as one might think. UNC averaged 86.3 points per game this year. Michigan State averaged 65.1 versus worse competition. Look for the score to be about that.
PICK - North Carolina
USC v. Texas: USC had no real non-conference heft outside of Kansas (and beating Wichita St. doesn't count - unless you want to count losing to Kansas St.) so this team is hard to judge. Like I said, I don't think they're very good, and overall I think Texas' talent will carry them. An easier game for Texas here than in the first round.
PICK - Texas
Vanderbilt v. Oral Roberts: Vandy should benefit from the upset here. The teams match up fairly well but Vanderbilt can score a bit better. Oral Roberts will need someone other than Green and Tutt to step up to pull off another upset, but Vandy's balance should be too much.
PICK - Vanderbilt
Texas Tech v. Georgetown: I'm not sure Texas Tech has the strength and size to compete with Green and Hibbert of Georgetown. The loss of BC's Williams will enable Tech to sneak one win, but two physical teams in a row might be too much.
PICK - Georgetown
SWEET 16:
North Carolina v. Texas: Both teams are extremely young, but both are so experienced by this point. Texas has shown it has a killer instinct when they beat the assassin himself, Acie Law, and A&M in overtime recently. However, UNC will be able to give Durant more looks than he's seen all year because of their depth, and that should give them the edge.
PICK - North Carolina
Vanderbilt v. Georgetown: These two teams squared off in November, with Georgetown winning by 16. And Georgetown got better. Yikes.
PICK - Georgetown
ELITE 8:
North Carolina v. Georgetown: The one thing UNC can do is handle Georgetown's size, and they'll be the first team to be able to do so. With Tyler Hansbrough, Brandan Wright, Deon Thompson, and Alex Stepheson, the Tar Heels could counter Hibbert and Green. With their better perimeter game led by Wayne Ellington and role player (again, for the second time) Reyshawn Terry, UNC should prevail.
PICK - North Carolina
SOUTH REGION
Ohio State v. Central Connecticut State: Honestly, Ohio State couldn't have asked for a better first round matchup. The "other" Blue Devlis put pressure on the ball and can create turnovers that lead to easy buckets. If Ohio State's wing players don't help the backcourt bring the ball up, they could be vulnerable to CCSU's patented press and...
...okay, I'm kidding. Ohio State's going to kill them. Central Connecticut lost to St. Bonaventure this year.
'Nuff said.
PICK - Ohio State
BYU v. Xavier: A lot of people "want" to see Xavier win because of the Thad Motta connection. This is going to be a real tight game, but I do in fact give the edge to Xavier because of Drew Lavender's newfound leadership after transferring from Oklahoma.
PICK - Xavier
Tennessee v. Long Beach State: Long Beach State is a surprising #12 seed since their best out of conference win this year was against nobody. But they can put points on the board. Problem for them, so can Tennessee.
PICK - Tennessee
Virginia v. Albany: Yikes. I'm nervous if I'm UVA. First of all, UVA's RPI of 55 is more in the range of teams who didn't make the NCAA tournament, nevermind a #4 seed (by contrast, Southern Illinois' is 7)...so clearly, they are vulnerable. Next, they have some curious losses earlier in the year (Appalachian State and ESPECIALLY Utah by 24) which shows that their head isn't always in it. And, after earning a bye in the ACC tournament, they lost to a much hungrier NC State team after being up early. So can they get it done?
I give them one chance.
PICK - Virginia
Louisville v. Stanford: I'm not sold on Louisville, and they may have issues with Stanford's size, but I love Edgar Sosa and I'm not sure how healthy Stanford is as a team just yet. Plus, playing in Lexington shouldn't hurt.
PICK - Louisville
Texas A&M v. Pennsylvania: Penn is comparable competition to which A&M scheduled out of conference, so A&M should have no problems. Look for Josh Carter to hit about 7 threes in a pretty easy win.
PICK - Texas A&M
Nevada v. Creighton: Nick Fazekas v. Nate Funk. Whose name is cooler? I think Funk's is, but I think Nevada is the better team, even with Kyle Shiloh on the shelf. Ramon Sessions and especially Marcelus Kemp should be enough scoring support for the Wolf Pack to move on.
PICK - Nevada
Memphis v. North Texas: See the blurb on Texas A&M, but Memphis was accustomed to it all season in Conference USA. North Texas should be happy if they don't lose by 30.
PICK - Memphis
SECOND ROUND:
Ohio State v. Xavier: Greg Oden and all their perimeter shooters will be too much for the Musketeers. They make a game of it, though, and prove to doubters at ESPN that they certainly belonged in the field.
PICK - Ohio State
Tennessee v. Virginia: Virginia likely has better size than Tennessee, but I really think Chris Lofton will be the difference. Whereas Sean Singletary has the propensity to overtake games when he doesn't really have to, Lofton has the ability to win games (ask Winthrop).
PICK - Tennessee
Louisville v. Texas A&M: Texas A&M should be able to overcome Louisville's virtual homecourt advantage with better guard play. As I said, I love Sosa, but he's no Acie Law. It should be a fun 2nd round game.
PICK - Texas A&M
Nevada v. Memphis: This is where the loss of Shiloh will hurt Nevada. Memphis' depth is comparable to UNC's and Georgia Tech's, so they should be able to wear Nevada down with their pressing style that John Calipari likes to employ. Nevada could win if it's close as Memphis struggles mightily from the free throw line, but I like the higher seed here.
PICK - Memphis
SWEET 16:
Ohio State v. Tennessee: A great rematch from a fun game a couple months ago in Columbus where OSU squeaked by with a 2 point win. Look for Tennessee to continue to pressure Oden like they did in the first matchup and create similar turnovers (he had a great game, but 4 turnovers among the team's 20). Also, the Volunteers should benefit from a neutral floor. If they can get more help from young big men Wayne Chism and Ryan Childress than they did in the first meeting, take the upset.
PICK - Tennessee
Texas A&M v. Memphis: The challenge here for A&M will be Memphis' depth. But, despite that depth, Memphis has a similar issue to Kansas in that it doesn't have that "go-to" player. Chris Douglas-Roberts is certainly a good player but he hasn't been asked to win close games this year. Acie Law has. And he's delivered. It won't hurt that the game is in San Antonio.
PICK - Texas A&M
Elite 8:
Tennessee v. Texas A&M: A fantastic matchup between the region's best clutch performers, Chris Lofton and Acie Law. I think A&M's defense, though, will be the difference here, as despite averaging nearly 80 points per game, Tennessee's offense has gone AWOL at times this year (like the entire Butler game). I like A&M in a great contest.
PICK - Texas A&M
FINAL FOUR:
Maryland v. UCLA: Afflalo, Shipp, and Collison should be too much for Strawberry and co. to handle, plus UCLA's big men can hang with the Terps.
PICK - UCLA
North Carolina v. Texas A&M: UNC will pass yet another test in this brutal run as A&M won't have enough offense to stick with the Tar Heels.
PICK - UNC
CHAMPIONSHIP:
UCLA v. North Carolina: UCLA won't lose back to back years. Despite the boatload of talent UNC possesses, Aaron Afflalo will be the best player on the floor, and Ty Lawson will be too tired to compete with Darren Collison after having to chase around Drew Neitzel, D.J. Augustin, and Acie Law.
WINNER: UCLA
Hope you liked this diversion from the usual stuff! I'm impressed if you can read it all! Enjoy all the games, and root for the CRUSADERS!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)