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.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
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!!!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
What to Do About Global Warming?
Is this the hottest issue of the day or what?
The New York Sun editorializes that "Global Warming Turns Ugly" in the face of debate. And check out the way it absolutely slams England's Guardian newspaper for its attack on global warming dissenters:
"...the singularly nasty attack by the left-wing Guardian newspaper of England a week or so ago attacking a distinguished American think tank, the American Enterprise Institute of Washington, D.C., for soliciting scholarly papers that might disagree with the so-called global warming consensus. 'Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study,' the Guardian breathlessly headlined its story last week.
"AEI, described as a 'lobby group,' was said to be offering $10,000 — plus, wait for it, travel expenses — to scientists and economists for essays that showed the 'limitations of global climate models.' In the second paragraph the Guardian described AEI as an 'ExxonMobil-funded think tank with close links to the Bush administration.'
"Never mind that scientists on both sides of the issue take 'cash' to study global warming. And never mind that AEI isn't a 'lobby group' — under American tax law, organizations like AEI are expressly prohibited from lobbying. Or that ExxonMobil funding is less than 1% of AEI's total budget, or that a recent AEI research paper called for a tax on carbon, an idea that is hardly in line with ExxonMobil's financial interests."
Wow - was that good or what...
Also, the United Nations report referred to in the beginning of the article is worth analyzing. More specifically, the organization behind the report itself, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is worth a second look.
Just who are they?
According to Patrick J. Michaels, author of Meltdown (emphasis mine):
"Projections of future warming from greenhouse gases largely depend on how much carbon dioxide is produced by the respiration of our civilization. For years, the unchallenged prognosticator of these concentrations has been the United Nations.
"In 1988, the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which describes itself as 'an intergovernmental mechanism aimed at providing the basis for the development of a realistic and effective internationally accepted strategy for addressing climate change.'
"The IPCC conducts occasional 'assessments' of the state of climate science, producing one assessment in 1990, another report as a supplement for the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and subsequent assessments in 1996 and 2002. Those slick, massive volumes are the product of hundreds of scientists and a larger community of reviewers. They include analyses of past climate behavior, projections of future greenhouse gas emission pojections, and forecasts of future climate....
"Briefly, the IPCC is as much a collection of government bureaucrats as it is of working scientists. In The Satanic Gases, my coauthor, Robert Balling, and I determined that only about 33 percent of the 200+ 'lead authors' are in fact climate scientists. Consequently, the 'consensus' that these documents achieve is in fact determined by a majority opinion that is not necessarily formally trained in the subject matter."
You will not hear this from mainstream media outlets!
Czech president Vaclav Klaus recognized both the imbalance and lack of expertise among the U.N. panel and blasted them in this way:
"'These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment,' he told interviewers.
"According to the Czech president, 'each serious person and scientist' says that global warming is a myth. "
Politics should not be involved in the scientific debate over global warming, and the Czech president is right to recognize it and speak out against it. The Washington Times calls attention to the bullying coming from the Left, and notes that this bullying has led to putting people's jobs in jeopardy:
"Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.
"'In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah,' said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.
"'It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way.'
"Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance.
"'There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them,' said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 'It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats.'"
The attempted silence of debate from the Left has been going on for too long. Whether its supporting ethnic profiling, questioning the legitimacy of the 9/11 widows' political points of view, or now, the global warming debate, the Left constantly tries to silence debate through intimidation, smear (we know Ellen Goodman thinks us "Holocaust deniers"), and distortion of fact. Hopefully, contrarian views on global warming will continue to be presented, as there is a mountain of evidence. (By the way, read Dennis Prager's refutation of Goodman here.)
More dissenting news from the Telegraph:
"Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
"This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.
"He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate."
Naturally, the Telegraph refers to the research as "controversial" twice in the short piece. Either it's clear where the Telegraph stands on this issue, or the collective vocabulary of the editing staff is quite limited...and why is it that those who believe that man is the primary cause of global warming are always called "experts", even when called in question by "controversial" studies? Why are those scientists who believe in global warming more worthy of the label "expert" than Svensmark is?
The Times Online highlights the reporting distortion in the mainstream media about global warming phenomena:
"Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean."
Read the whole piece.
John McCain and Joe Lieberman, known to have conservative support on a number of political issues, attempt to proselytize skeptics with these hysterical predictions from their op-ed piece last month, reprinted in the Boston Globe:
"Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation."
Where's the evidence for all these outlandish claims? Again, the main source for advocates of man-made global warming is the all-powerful IPCC report blaming man for global warming (well, it's "90 percent" sure it's man's fault - good enough, right?). And, again, there's no indication of who makes up this panel, or how this panel conducts its research.
Here's more evidence contradicting "experts" on global warming - this time, more specifically, to the rise in Antarctic temperatures during the late 20th century. Curiously enough, professor David Bromwich, reporting on the study, seems sympathetic to the global warming cause:
"Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
"'It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations,' he said."
Sounds like what the Washington Times predicted about dissension is already coming true.
It really is too bad that all these facts disproving global warming are coming out now, since it's become chic in Hollywood to embrace the cause. "Rock star" Al Gore has announced "plans on (July 7 of this year) for a worldwide string of pop concerts...featuring Sheryl Crow, Red Hot Chili Peppers and scores of others to mobilize action to stop global warming."
And don't worry - the sports world will not be left out of the global warning arena, either. Sports Illustrated injects itself into the argument with Dontrelle Willis on the cover, standing in a flooded Dolphin Stadium, presumably to the effects of global warming. Alexander Wolff echoes the mainstream media with some strong, baseless assertions (emphasis mine):
"...A warming planet doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and last longer. Tropical storms become more powerful over a warmer Gulf, turning a category 4 storm, for example, into a category 5, like Katrina, which transformed the symbol of sports in New Orleans, the Superdome, into an image of epic disaster. In addition to more intense storms, higher seas, and droughts and floods, ocean flow patterns could change, leading to the extinction of marine species. Warmer temperatures could devastate agricultural economies around the globe, and diseases such as malaria now confined to the tropics would spread to other regions.
"Unlike many other pressing environmental concerns -- pollution, water shortages, overpopulation, deforestation -- global warming is by definition global. Every organism on the planet is already feeling its impact."
Global warming as a science has not yet been proven, yet Sports Illustrated has become an authority on the subject. So scientists can't expressing differing viewpoints, but Sports Illustrated should be taken at its word.
Unreal.
The next step in the debate is the "controversial" (there's that word again!) documentary which aired a few days ago in Britain. I'm curious to read the backlash this receives.
Hopefully debate will remain open on this subject that will likely remain debatable for quite some time. I leave you with a humorous take on the entire scope of the issue from Doug Giles.
Sometimes you just have to laugh.
The New York Sun editorializes that "Global Warming Turns Ugly" in the face of debate. And check out the way it absolutely slams England's Guardian newspaper for its attack on global warming dissenters:
"...the singularly nasty attack by the left-wing Guardian newspaper of England a week or so ago attacking a distinguished American think tank, the American Enterprise Institute of Washington, D.C., for soliciting scholarly papers that might disagree with the so-called global warming consensus. 'Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study,' the Guardian breathlessly headlined its story last week.
"AEI, described as a 'lobby group,' was said to be offering $10,000 — plus, wait for it, travel expenses — to scientists and economists for essays that showed the 'limitations of global climate models.' In the second paragraph the Guardian described AEI as an 'ExxonMobil-funded think tank with close links to the Bush administration.'
"Never mind that scientists on both sides of the issue take 'cash' to study global warming. And never mind that AEI isn't a 'lobby group' — under American tax law, organizations like AEI are expressly prohibited from lobbying. Or that ExxonMobil funding is less than 1% of AEI's total budget, or that a recent AEI research paper called for a tax on carbon, an idea that is hardly in line with ExxonMobil's financial interests."
Wow - was that good or what...
Also, the United Nations report referred to in the beginning of the article is worth analyzing. More specifically, the organization behind the report itself, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is worth a second look.
Just who are they?
According to Patrick J. Michaels, author of Meltdown (emphasis mine):
"Projections of future warming from greenhouse gases largely depend on how much carbon dioxide is produced by the respiration of our civilization. For years, the unchallenged prognosticator of these concentrations has been the United Nations.
"In 1988, the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which describes itself as 'an intergovernmental mechanism aimed at providing the basis for the development of a realistic and effective internationally accepted strategy for addressing climate change.'
"The IPCC conducts occasional 'assessments' of the state of climate science, producing one assessment in 1990, another report as a supplement for the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and subsequent assessments in 1996 and 2002. Those slick, massive volumes are the product of hundreds of scientists and a larger community of reviewers. They include analyses of past climate behavior, projections of future greenhouse gas emission pojections, and forecasts of future climate....
"Briefly, the IPCC is as much a collection of government bureaucrats as it is of working scientists. In The Satanic Gases, my coauthor, Robert Balling, and I determined that only about 33 percent of the 200+ 'lead authors' are in fact climate scientists. Consequently, the 'consensus' that these documents achieve is in fact determined by a majority opinion that is not necessarily formally trained in the subject matter."
You will not hear this from mainstream media outlets!
Czech president Vaclav Klaus recognized both the imbalance and lack of expertise among the U.N. panel and blasted them in this way:
"'These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment,' he told interviewers.
"According to the Czech president, 'each serious person and scientist' says that global warming is a myth. "
Politics should not be involved in the scientific debate over global warming, and the Czech president is right to recognize it and speak out against it. The Washington Times calls attention to the bullying coming from the Left, and notes that this bullying has led to putting people's jobs in jeopardy:
"Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.
"'In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah,' said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.
"'It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way.'
"Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance.
"'There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them,' said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 'It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats.'"
The attempted silence of debate from the Left has been going on for too long. Whether its supporting ethnic profiling, questioning the legitimacy of the 9/11 widows' political points of view, or now, the global warming debate, the Left constantly tries to silence debate through intimidation, smear (we know Ellen Goodman thinks us "Holocaust deniers"), and distortion of fact. Hopefully, contrarian views on global warming will continue to be presented, as there is a mountain of evidence. (By the way, read Dennis Prager's refutation of Goodman here.)
More dissenting news from the Telegraph:
"Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
"This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.
"He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate."
Naturally, the Telegraph refers to the research as "controversial" twice in the short piece. Either it's clear where the Telegraph stands on this issue, or the collective vocabulary of the editing staff is quite limited...and why is it that those who believe that man is the primary cause of global warming are always called "experts", even when called in question by "controversial" studies? Why are those scientists who believe in global warming more worthy of the label "expert" than Svensmark is?
The Times Online highlights the reporting distortion in the mainstream media about global warming phenomena:
"Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean."
Read the whole piece.
John McCain and Joe Lieberman, known to have conservative support on a number of political issues, attempt to proselytize skeptics with these hysterical predictions from their op-ed piece last month, reprinted in the Boston Globe:
"Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation."
Where's the evidence for all these outlandish claims? Again, the main source for advocates of man-made global warming is the all-powerful IPCC report blaming man for global warming (well, it's "90 percent" sure it's man's fault - good enough, right?). And, again, there's no indication of who makes up this panel, or how this panel conducts its research.
Here's more evidence contradicting "experts" on global warming - this time, more specifically, to the rise in Antarctic temperatures during the late 20th century. Curiously enough, professor David Bromwich, reporting on the study, seems sympathetic to the global warming cause:
"Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
"'It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations,' he said."
Sounds like what the Washington Times predicted about dissension is already coming true.
It really is too bad that all these facts disproving global warming are coming out now, since it's become chic in Hollywood to embrace the cause. "Rock star" Al Gore has announced "plans on (July 7 of this year) for a worldwide string of pop concerts...featuring Sheryl Crow, Red Hot Chili Peppers and scores of others to mobilize action to stop global warming."
And don't worry - the sports world will not be left out of the global warning arena, either. Sports Illustrated injects itself into the argument with Dontrelle Willis on the cover, standing in a flooded Dolphin Stadium, presumably to the effects of global warming. Alexander Wolff echoes the mainstream media with some strong, baseless assertions (emphasis mine):
"...A warming planet doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and last longer. Tropical storms become more powerful over a warmer Gulf, turning a category 4 storm, for example, into a category 5, like Katrina, which transformed the symbol of sports in New Orleans, the Superdome, into an image of epic disaster. In addition to more intense storms, higher seas, and droughts and floods, ocean flow patterns could change, leading to the extinction of marine species. Warmer temperatures could devastate agricultural economies around the globe, and diseases such as malaria now confined to the tropics would spread to other regions.
"Unlike many other pressing environmental concerns -- pollution, water shortages, overpopulation, deforestation -- global warming is by definition global. Every organism on the planet is already feeling its impact."
Global warming as a science has not yet been proven, yet Sports Illustrated has become an authority on the subject. So scientists can't expressing differing viewpoints, but Sports Illustrated should be taken at its word.
Unreal.
The next step in the debate is the "controversial" (there's that word again!) documentary which aired a few days ago in Britain. I'm curious to read the backlash this receives.
Hopefully debate will remain open on this subject that will likely remain debatable for quite some time. I leave you with a humorous take on the entire scope of the issue from Doug Giles.
Sometimes you just have to laugh.
"America Hasn't Been Attacked Since 9/11..."
This is quite a tired conservative argument.
Why? Because it's not true.
Sure, 3,000 Americans haven't died on the same day at the hands of terrorists like 9/11. But terror attacks are still occurring. Here are a few:
1) The Beltway Snipers. John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo terrorized Montgomery County, Maryland and the Washington D.C. area back in the fall of 2002, leading to the deaths of at least 10 Americans. Their criminal behavior has been linked to as many as 16 deaths.
It's been reported by the Seattle Times "that Muhammad and Malvo were known to speak sympathetically about the September 11 hijackers and may have been motivated by anti-American sentiment. " Muhammad converted to Islam after divorcing his first wife.
2) terror attack on Chapel Hill. Mohammad Reza Teheri-Azar drove an SUV through a crowd of students, apparently as a revenge attack on America for how it treats Muslims. He was indicted for nine counts of attempted murder in May 2006.
3) LAX. Hesham Mohamed Hedayet killed at least 2 Americans at LAX airport in July 2002. There are conflicting reports as to whether Hedayet should've been in the country in the first place - but it seems as if he was granted a 245(i) exception, which "allows illegal immigrants who might otherwise be deported to remain in the United States while they adjust their status to that of a legal permanent resident."
Al Hayat and World Net Daily report that Hadayet had links to terrorism. CNN reports that the attack was isolated:
"Federal, law enforcement and city officials said it appeared the shooting was an isolated incident, with nothing to suggest otherwise.
"'There is no indication of any terrorism connection in this matter right now, but again we also can't discount that until we know more,' (FBI spokesman Matt) McLaughlin told reporters.
"Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn added: 'It appears this was an isolated incident.' A Bush administration source concurred with that statement, adding that nothing suggested it was anything other than a criminal act. "
I guess we're left to draw our own conclusions, but this reeks of terrorist activity. This guy shouldn't have been in the country in the first place, and if not for the Bush administration's still-lax immigration policies, he wouldn't have been. Faced with possible deportation, Hedayet went on a killing spree.
Sounds like a terrorist to me.
4) Sulejman Talovic. Despite the sympathetic coverage in the press, this man's actions should not be overshadowed by his family's dire circumstances. The cold-blooded murder of 5 Americans in a Salt Lake City shopping area (reportedly, the number likely would've been more than 5 had not Talovic been killed himself) took place in February of this year. This case appears to be another revenge attack, this time for Muslim persecution in Bosnia during the '90s
This is only a partial list, too. So the next time someone tries to start a debate with the tagline "America hasn't been attacked since 9/11", know that they are wrong and defend why we need to be vigilant now more than ever in protecting this country.
Of particular importance on this topic is the work of Debbie Schlussel. Check it out.
Why? Because it's not true.
Sure, 3,000 Americans haven't died on the same day at the hands of terrorists like 9/11. But terror attacks are still occurring. Here are a few:
1) The Beltway Snipers. John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo terrorized Montgomery County, Maryland and the Washington D.C. area back in the fall of 2002, leading to the deaths of at least 10 Americans. Their criminal behavior has been linked to as many as 16 deaths.
It's been reported by the Seattle Times "that Muhammad and Malvo were known to speak sympathetically about the September 11 hijackers and may have been motivated by anti-American sentiment. " Muhammad converted to Islam after divorcing his first wife.
2) terror attack on Chapel Hill. Mohammad Reza Teheri-Azar drove an SUV through a crowd of students, apparently as a revenge attack on America for how it treats Muslims. He was indicted for nine counts of attempted murder in May 2006.
3) LAX. Hesham Mohamed Hedayet killed at least 2 Americans at LAX airport in July 2002. There are conflicting reports as to whether Hedayet should've been in the country in the first place - but it seems as if he was granted a 245(i) exception, which "allows illegal immigrants who might otherwise be deported to remain in the United States while they adjust their status to that of a legal permanent resident."
Al Hayat and World Net Daily report that Hadayet had links to terrorism. CNN reports that the attack was isolated:
"Federal, law enforcement and city officials said it appeared the shooting was an isolated incident, with nothing to suggest otherwise.
"'There is no indication of any terrorism connection in this matter right now, but again we also can't discount that until we know more,' (FBI spokesman Matt) McLaughlin told reporters.
"Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn added: 'It appears this was an isolated incident.' A Bush administration source concurred with that statement, adding that nothing suggested it was anything other than a criminal act. "
I guess we're left to draw our own conclusions, but this reeks of terrorist activity. This guy shouldn't have been in the country in the first place, and if not for the Bush administration's still-lax immigration policies, he wouldn't have been. Faced with possible deportation, Hedayet went on a killing spree.
Sounds like a terrorist to me.
4) Sulejman Talovic. Despite the sympathetic coverage in the press, this man's actions should not be overshadowed by his family's dire circumstances. The cold-blooded murder of 5 Americans in a Salt Lake City shopping area (reportedly, the number likely would've been more than 5 had not Talovic been killed himself) took place in February of this year. This case appears to be another revenge attack, this time for Muslim persecution in Bosnia during the '90s
This is only a partial list, too. So the next time someone tries to start a debate with the tagline "America hasn't been attacked since 9/11", know that they are wrong and defend why we need to be vigilant now more than ever in protecting this country.
Of particular importance on this topic is the work of Debbie Schlussel. Check it out.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Ann Coulter and the "Faggot" Joke
OF COURSE this is SUCH a big deal...
Why can't we say that the joke was just bad and move on?
Did she mean any ill-will towards gays? No.
Did she botch the joke? (as John Kerry claims he did) No. Here she is on Hannity and Colmes with an explanation:
"...Liberals like Kerry get caught calling our troops dumb and then go back and say, oh, I botched a joke. No, I didn't botch a joke, and I didn't use an insulting word. I used a schoolyard word about a married man with children, 28th billionth time, and the audience knew that. I mean, the joke wouldn't have worked if I had inserted the name of a gay Democrat. Any other Democrat, the name could have been inserted. It could have been Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton, because it's a schoolyard taunt meaning wuss..."
And...
"...Kerry actually said, if you don't do your homework, if you don't go to school, you end up in Iraq. You can quote me exactly, and I don't have to change any words..."
Many conservatives are not happy with Coulter.
Malkin unleashes here.
Mary Katharine Ham is done defending her.
Dean Barnett is sick of it.
Michael Medved's response, though, is the one that stood out for me. Why?
...because he sounded like a liberal.
First of all, he calls the term "an anti-homosexual slur"...which was not her intended use. Then, he goes on to paint John Edwards as someone who should not be criticized because of his tough life:
"...it’s totally unacceptable to direct (the word) at Edwards – who’s been happily married for thirty years to a breast-cancer survivor and fathered five children, one of whom died in a tragic accident."
And...
"...laughingly smearing him as a closeted homosexual constitutes an inexcusable degradation of public discourse."
WOW - isn't THAT quite a leap in interpretation?
He then goes on that Coulter shouldn't question the sexuality of those who are married (which she wasn't doing) because she herself has never been married...implying that her own sexuality should be questioned more than Edwards'.
I have liked some of Medved's writings in the past, but this is so off-the-wall wrong you would think it came from Huffington Post or something.
I like what Atlas Shrugs says here:
"My point is I hate how the right has completely thrown her under the bus. She is a brilliant, beautiful, acerbic, bright light of the right. The right can't run fast enough the other way. Seems to me they are a bunch of faggots as well."
Again, the joke admittedly wasn't funny. But she wasn't engaging in hate speech or making anti-gay comments in any way. Let's forget this and move on.
Why can't we say that the joke was just bad and move on?
Did she mean any ill-will towards gays? No.
Did she botch the joke? (as John Kerry claims he did) No. Here she is on Hannity and Colmes with an explanation:
"...Liberals like Kerry get caught calling our troops dumb and then go back and say, oh, I botched a joke. No, I didn't botch a joke, and I didn't use an insulting word. I used a schoolyard word about a married man with children, 28th billionth time, and the audience knew that. I mean, the joke wouldn't have worked if I had inserted the name of a gay Democrat. Any other Democrat, the name could have been inserted. It could have been Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton, because it's a schoolyard taunt meaning wuss..."
And...
"...Kerry actually said, if you don't do your homework, if you don't go to school, you end up in Iraq. You can quote me exactly, and I don't have to change any words..."
Many conservatives are not happy with Coulter.
Malkin unleashes here.
Mary Katharine Ham is done defending her.
Dean Barnett is sick of it.
Michael Medved's response, though, is the one that stood out for me. Why?
...because he sounded like a liberal.
First of all, he calls the term "an anti-homosexual slur"...which was not her intended use. Then, he goes on to paint John Edwards as someone who should not be criticized because of his tough life:
"...it’s totally unacceptable to direct (the word) at Edwards – who’s been happily married for thirty years to a breast-cancer survivor and fathered five children, one of whom died in a tragic accident."
And...
"...laughingly smearing him as a closeted homosexual constitutes an inexcusable degradation of public discourse."
WOW - isn't THAT quite a leap in interpretation?
He then goes on that Coulter shouldn't question the sexuality of those who are married (which she wasn't doing) because she herself has never been married...implying that her own sexuality should be questioned more than Edwards'.
I have liked some of Medved's writings in the past, but this is so off-the-wall wrong you would think it came from Huffington Post or something.
I like what Atlas Shrugs says here:
"My point is I hate how the right has completely thrown her under the bus. She is a brilliant, beautiful, acerbic, bright light of the right. The right can't run fast enough the other way. Seems to me they are a bunch of faggots as well."
Again, the joke admittedly wasn't funny. But she wasn't engaging in hate speech or making anti-gay comments in any way. Let's forget this and move on.
Separation of Church and State...
...matters when you're a Mormon (registration required - the New York Times), who's Republican, who's running for President.
The article asks if Mitt Romney's religion will be an "obstacle" and wonders if he will be able to "overcome" it while running for the White House.
"Christians...dismiss his religion as a cult" according to MSNBC. The article also references a Washington Post/ABC News poll which says that 35% of the respondents would be "less likely" to vote for a candidate who is Mormon...
...but we have no idea who the respondents are. The poll isn't cited.
USA Today seems to think Mormonism is "strange" and a "handicap" to the White House.
...and atheists are furious with him!
But what happens when religion intersects with politics on the Democratic side?
Don't worry - it's just "two rivals mark(ing) the civil rights struggle." They're just "honor(ing) activists." They're "commemorat(ing) 'Bloody Sunday.'" They're "converg(ing) on a civil rights shrine."
Where's the ACLU on this one? Why aren't they furious that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hosted political rallies in churches? Isn't this an obvious violation of church and state??? Where's the perpetual outrage we are so accustomed to seeing?
The bigger question: Why can one candidate (in this case, two) be influenced by his religion, while another cannot?
At least one headline captured the true meaning of why Clinton and Obama were in Selma in the first place...
The article asks if Mitt Romney's religion will be an "obstacle" and wonders if he will be able to "overcome" it while running for the White House.
"Christians...dismiss his religion as a cult" according to MSNBC. The article also references a Washington Post/ABC News poll which says that 35% of the respondents would be "less likely" to vote for a candidate who is Mormon...
...but we have no idea who the respondents are. The poll isn't cited.
USA Today seems to think Mormonism is "strange" and a "handicap" to the White House.
...and atheists are furious with him!
But what happens when religion intersects with politics on the Democratic side?
Don't worry - it's just "two rivals mark(ing) the civil rights struggle." They're just "honor(ing) activists." They're "commemorat(ing) 'Bloody Sunday.'" They're "converg(ing) on a civil rights shrine."
Where's the ACLU on this one? Why aren't they furious that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hosted political rallies in churches? Isn't this an obvious violation of church and state??? Where's the perpetual outrage we are so accustomed to seeing?
The bigger question: Why can one candidate (in this case, two) be influenced by his religion, while another cannot?
At least one headline captured the true meaning of why Clinton and Obama were in Selma in the first place...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)