Quarreyman News

The 30 Best Players in Baseball

2011-04-02T21:35:00.003-04:00

Joe Posnanski has turned into arguably the best sportswriter in the business; his mix of the personal with the professional creates a warm, easy read even when discussing advanced sabermetrics. Joe has a fascination with the number 32, and a few days ago, he listed the 32 best players in the game. The writing is fantastic, and the reasoning behind most of the selections is intelligent and thoughtful.

But some of those choices are baffling, specifically in regards to Chase Utley. Posnanski stresses that the list is limited to who will have a fantastic year in 2011 and mentions that Utley is, in his eyes, one of the ten best players in the game usually. He then informs the reader that Utley might not play at all this year . . . before ranking him at number 12. Clearly Posnanski is infatuated with the Philly 2B - he basically ignores his own rules to list Utley that high.

His inclusion of David Wright is equally questionable, and some of his omissions are egregious. Yet rather than matching his 32, I will only rank 30. Thirty is a more well-rounded numbers; humans are taught to think in multiples of ten, and a list featuring a number ending in zero tends to carry more gravitas as a result.

There's a reason Moses came down the mountain with ten commandments.

I actually agree with Posnanski's top three, so you can stop reading once you get there. It's the other 27 that deserve re-ranking.

30. Andre Ethier, Los Angeles Dodgers
A controversial choice, but the knack Ethier shows for walk-off hits, his meaning to the Dodger lineup, and his young age gives him the slightest of edges over a number of spectacular players.

29. Dustin Pedroia, Boston Red Sox
Injuries slowed Pedroia in 2010, but the scrappy 2B is everything a manager would covet in a player: tough and feisty with hitting ability for average and power. Chase Utley's injury places Pedroia head and shoulders above 28 starting 2B in baseball.

28. Mariano Rivera, New York Yankees
In another life, he could've been a starting CF. Fans that arrive early enough to catch batting practice can sometimes see him fly across the outfield to catch balls.

In Atlanta in 2009, Rivera was forced to bat and hit a rocket to deep center field. When the ball was caught, the Yankee dugout cheered the Atlanta CF for making the catch.

"If he'd had gotten a hit," Derek Jeter said later, "we'd never have heard the end of it."

27. Buster Posey, San Francisco Giants
Only a special player could hit cleanup as a catcher on a World Series champion . . . as a rookie.

26. Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers
Sports Illustrated tells the tragedy befalling Verlander's last batter of 2010: three straight fastballs over a 100 MPH. It's amazing to think that the man with a no-hitter and two Top 5 Cy Young finishes on his resume might not have reached his potential yet, but many feel that the righty from Richmond could improve. That'd be a scary thought for the rest of the AL.

25. Ubaldo Jimenez, Colorado Rockies
Much as Verlander topped the velocity charts in the AL, Jimenez did the same in the NL. He returned to earth in the second half of 2010 after a mind-blowing first half, but with that disappointing finish under his belt, Jimenez will be motivated to continue his blistering 2010 start across all of 2011.

24. Ichiro Suzuki, Seattle Mariners
Mariano Rivera threw his cutter inside, and this was not during his seasonal dead arm period. This cutter had bite, but the batter pulled it over the right field wall for a walkoff HR.

That anecdote from 2009 proves that Ichiro can hit HRs when he wants to . . . he just chooses not to. And that anecdote doesn't even mention that he pitched occasionally in Japan.

23. Kevin Youkilis, Boston Red Sox
The single most annoying Sox player since Pedro. It should be noted that there are two categories of Sox semi-legends: the unlikable pricks that you'd hate no matter what (Schilling, Papelbon) and the people that you hate because they're Sox but would love if they were not Sox (Pedro, Pedroia). Youkilis straddles the line between the groups much as he's straddled the line between 3B and 1B in his career.

22. Matt Cain, San Francisco Giants
The man did not allow a single earned run in the playoffs last year.

21. Carl Crawford, Boston Red Sox
If Crawford ever developed consistent power, he'd be a top 5 player. As it is, he's still pretty special.

20. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington Nationals
19. Ryan Braun, Milwaukee Brewers
It's crazy to think that both guys were drafted in the same year (in the top 10) at the same position. Braun's transitioned from 3B to the outfield, and his hitting from the outfield gives him the slightest of edges over Zimmerman.

18. Joey Votto, Cincinnati Reds
Votto had a truly special 2010, but there are so many talented first basemen in the league today that it is hard to separate the good from the very good, and the very good from the great. Konerko, Morales, Pujols, Cabrera, Gonzalez, Teixiera, Votto, Morneau, Helton . . . all are worthy candidates for spots on the list.

17. Alex Rodriguez, New York Yankees
This is the first year in quite awhile that Rodriguez has been able to fully focus his training on baseball instead of rehabbing injuries. The last time that he did so, he won the MVP.

Plus, being fed by your woman like an Ottoman sultan is worth quite a few spots on the list.

16. David Price, Tampa Bay Rays
15. CC Sabathia, New York Yankees
14. Jon Lester, Boston Red Sox
It's impossible to truly separate these three - it's up to the individual to rank them in any order.

13. Cliff Lee, Philadelphia Phillies
Think about one of the best times of your life: maybe it was college, or maybe it was specific vacation. As time goes by and you're sucked back into the real world, you always tell yourself that you're going to go back to relive the experience, if only for a short time.

And yet it's never the same - it can't be. The place has changed, but more than that, you've changed as well, and no matter how much fun the flashback is, it can't match up to the first time around.

With the losses of Utley and Jayson Werth and the declines of Ryan Howard and Jimmy Rollins, the Phillies are not the same powerhouse as they were in 2009. But Lee has changed as well - he's no longer invincible. He has two more years of wear and tear on his arm. And as great as he may be this year, his second tenure in Philly won't match his first.

Because it can't.

12. Hanley Ramirez, Florida Marlins
11. Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers
The current and former Marlins would be top 5 players if they could only overcome their demons.

10. Josh Hamilton, Texas Rangers
I worry about his durability. He won the MVP last year even though he missed a month. And I worry about that ballpark effect. Posnanski pointed out that Texas has fielded 5 MVPs since 1994, and of the 5, only Alex Rodriguez did not have a significant difference between his home and road stats.

But the fact that Hamilton is a five-tool player, and the fact that he took an Andy Pettitte cutter that was both at the letters and in the other batter's box and smashed it over (the admittedly close) Yankee Stadium wall in last year's ALCS makes him more than the real Roy Hobbs.

It makes him the reincarnation of Mickey Mantle. Right down to the colorful off-field history.

9. Joe Mauer, Minnesota Twins
Brett Gardner, perhaps the fastest player in the league, thought he could win the game. Mauer had just retrieved a bunt and seemed to throw a rocket to first as Gardner came speeding down the third base line.

Except that Mauer hadn't let the ball go. He dove backwards across the plate and tagged Gardner out.

The only flaw in Mauer's game is a lack of HR power; in 2009, he hit quite a few, but his HR power disappeared again in 2010. If he hit HRs like in 2009, he'd be in the top 3.

8. Carlos Gonzalez, Colorado Rockies
A six-tool player.

7. Robinson Cano, New York Yankees
Cano took himself out of the MVP running with a late season swoon. He ended up with only a .319 average, which was down from a .320 average the year before. He did hit four more HRs and win a Gold Glove. But in two seasons that featured aged Yankees teams, Cano's most important number is 321.

That's the number of regular season games Cano played in the last two seasons. Spectacular numbers at a position where those numbers are hard to find combined with durability - that's why Cano's one of the top figures in the game.

6. Tim Lincecum, San Francisco Giants
Lincecum's 2010 regular season stats ended with an ERA in the mid 3s and a WHIP over 1.25 in the National League. These would be numbers that 85% of pitchers would kill for. They resulted in Lincecum's worst season. The playoffs were a different story. Short of a rocky first World Series start, Lincecum was jaw-droppingly good.

To put it in perspective: Roy Halladay threw only the second no-hitter in playoff history . . . and pitched only the second best game of that weekend.

5. Troy Tulowitzki, Colorado Rockies
Ramirez may put up comparable numbers in a less advantageous environment, but like the shortstop who made Tulo's number famous, it's the intangibles that place Tulo above him. Tulo brings leadership and drive to a team that will win the NL West this year and challenge for a spot in the World Series.

4. Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners
Felix has been pitching at a high level for so long that it's almost profane to point out that he's in his mid 20s. His Cy Young season last year will be looked at down the road as the moment that the paradigm shifted from old school stats like wins to more advanced sabermetrics.

3. Adrian Gonzalez, Boston Red Sox
Gonzalez put up monster numbers despite playing 81 games per season in a ballpark where both power alleys are close to 400 feet. When going right, Gonzalez hits the ball to left-center field.

The Green Monster is imposing not only because of its height but because of how close it is to the plate.

Earl Webb of the Boston Red Sox holds the single season record for doubles in a season with 67. He set the record in 1931. 80 years later, a fellow Red Sox seems destined to shatter it.

2. Roy Halladay, Philadelphia Phillies
The only man to throw a no-hitter in the regular season and the postseason in the same year. And if he hadn't hurt his groin doing so, perhaps the Giants would not be the defending champions.

1. Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals
This is Pujols' contract year. The definitive study on players and contracts estimated that the top free agents tended to be 10% more productive in their walk years. Last year, Pujols hit .312 and 42 HRs with an OPS of .1010. Posnanski notes that this might have been Albert's second worst year in the big leagues.

Now add 10% to those figures.

Pujols is looking for a new contract worth over $300 million. It's hard to believe that a baseball player would be worth that money. But if Babe Ruth could make more money than President Herbert Hoover, then maybe having Pujols take Barack Obama's salary and adding three zeroes may not be so farfetched.

TV's Lockout

2011-03-21T14:04:00.001-04:00

Many eyes are watching the NFL’s labor talks, but none watch with more interest than the broadcast television networks.

The NFL players’ union has officially decertified to avoid an official lockout, and issues are still being tensely negotiated. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has pressed to the implementation of an 18 game regular season, but the players’ union is resisting that concept and hoping to make contracts more equitable. Today, unproven rookies at flashy positions can command over $30 million in guaranteed money before taking a snap, while valuable veteran cogs in a team’s well-oiled machine, such as offensive and defensive linemen, make less in a year than Charlie Sheen makes per episode of Two and a Half Men.

Sheen has dominated the news lately, and CBS will struggle to replace his show in the lineup, but a resolution to the football crisis remains at the top of the wish list for all the networks. This is because the NFL is perhaps the one thing keeping television afloat.

In recent years, television ratings have been steadily declining in a manner similar to the American economy: all have been hurt, but those at the top have felt the least decline. Ten years ago, there were three shows that averaged over 20 million viewers, but the tenth-rated show, CSI, averaged 17.8 million. Five years ago, four shows averaged over 20 million viewers, and the tenth-rated show, House, averaged 17.3 million. This year, four shows have averaged over 20 million viewers, but the tenth-rated show, which is once again the original CSI, is averaging 13.7 million. The averages at the top have dropped as well: the top rated show of 2001, Survivor, brought in 29.8 million viewers, while 2006’s anchor, American Idol, averaged 31.2 million. Idol is once again king, and ratings may pick up as the competition comes to a close, but it has currently shed 10 million viewers since that peak.

Yet the overall ratings are only part of the story; the key to television’s decline can be seen in the key demographic of adults 18-49. Ten years ago, the tenth-rated show, CSI, averaged an 11.6 demo rating. This year, the top¬-rated show, American Idol, has averaged an 8.6. The only scripted show in the overall top 5 this year, NCIS, averages a 4.2 demo rating, which places it behind not only both nights of Idol and a night of Dancing, but also behind Glee, Modern Family, and Two & a Half Men. Glee is the only scripted show to average above a 5 in that demo.

The only product to produce massive ratings, both overall and in the 18-49 demo, and have those ratings eclipse prior performances is the NFL. This year’s Super Bowl was watched by 110 million viewers, and at the end of the TV season, the top primetime performer will not be Idol but NBC’s Sunday Night Football. Regular season NFL games over the three broadcast networks (and ESPN) averaged over 20 million viewers, and the postseason saw record ratings as well: a 28.1 and 31.3 rating for the NFC and AFC Championship games, respectively, meant increases of over 10 percent from last year (and the late game’s ratings were an increase of 32 percent over the late game two years ago).

With the rise of technology such as TiVo and the popularity of original programming on cable networks, the broadcast networks rely ever more on football to bring the nation together to their programming. Indeed, with the music industry hemorrhaging and the film industry losing dollars as well, football appears to be the one form of entertainment that unites Americans.

In 1958, Elvis Presley was drafted into the Army and served in Germany for two years. Elvis was the most popular musician in America by far, and industry crumpled in his absence. This was a time in which new products were released by the same artist every few months; it took years for the industry to recover. Television has reached that point with the NFL, but it is likely that there are no Beatles, Beach Boys, or Motown to eventually ride to its rescue.

The NFL and the players’ union hope to come to a reasonable agreement, and no one is hoping for that more than the broadcast networks.

Because the one thing Americans have come to a reasonable agreement on is the NFL.

America's Present Time

2011-03-04T09:27:00.000-05:00

In the shadow of the Super Bowl, Spring Training has begun.

It’s easy to overlook the unofficial start of summer when football has posted record ratings. Football is uniquely suited to take advantage of technological advances such as high-definition television and instant replay, which accentuate the violent collisions and highlight exceptional passing plays like never before. In recent seasons, the NFL has combined these technical innovations with soap-opera level storylines involving interesting and flawed personalities such as Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, and Brett Favre. Football has become America’s ultimate reality show.

As a sport, baseball cannot compare with football’s brutality; as George Carlin humorously noted, baseball is a pastoral game with a seventh inning stretch in which the defense initiates play and the only way to score is to be safe. The lack of an organized clock locks the potential viewer into an open-ended situation, and the rise of both advanced sabermetrics, which has led to an increase in strikeouts and walks, and bullpen specialization has lengthened the game and made many casual viewers believe the game to be boring.

It seems that America’s national pastime has been overtaken in America’s national imagination. Yet in the last twenty years, baseball has been more American than ever before.

In baseball, offensive statistics rose dramatically beginning in 1993, eventually shattering all sorts of records and shifting the paradigm of economic success before the sport was humbled by the revelation of unenforced laws in the late 2000s, which coincided with baseball’s economic bubble bursting.

Stop me if you’ve heard that before.

It should not be a coincidence that baseball almost exactly mirrored American capitalism, because baseball best reflects America’s economic structure. Both political liberals and political conservatives have reasons to complain about baseball, much as both complain about America.
Liberals decry the lack of a salary cap that allows baseball to avoid the parity trend of other sports and field dominant organizations. The New York Yankees are the symbol of unfettered capitalism, throwing dollars around with such wanton disregard that smaller market teams have little chance of signing an enticing free agent that the Yankees desire. Other big market teams, such as the Boston Red Sox and Philadelphia Phillies, can compete, but there is seemingly little chance for a small market team to win a championship unless they aim to win one year and then sell off their assets immediately after their victory.

In response to this, baseball executives instituted a luxury tax that financially penalized teams spending above a certain fixed amount; that financial penalty would then be spread out among the small market teams to help them compete. The Yankees are the primary target of this virtual bill of attainder, but other organizations have paid miniscule amounts in the past.

Yet the results of this tax have angered conservatives, who invoke the specter of Ronald Reagan’s fictitious “welfare queen” in light of recently released documents that show the owners of the Pittsburgh Pirates and Florida Marlins, among other small market teams, pocketing the tax revenues rather than investing it in their teams. Conservatives also point out that the Steinbrenner family and their limited partners that own the Yankees are not even close to the wealthiest owners in sports, and that the Yankees are successful because the owners are willing to risk unprofitability in order to sport a successful team on the field. The Yankees’ primary sources of income in the last few years have been their new television network (a risky investment) and their almost unparalleled attendance figures (spurred on by the winning team fans come to see). The Yankees have proven that investing in successful teams will eventually lead to great consumer interest.

Conservatives also point to the strength of the players’ union as a major cause of baseball’s woes. Baseball’s financial success as a sport coincided with the steroid era, and in the face of steroid revelations, that players’ union refused to support a drug testing policy unless it was so watered down that it would make a mockery of the concept.

But baseball is not merely a sport on which political disputes can be projected, nor is it simply a reflection of American capitalism of the last twenty years. Baseball’s greatest changes were reflections of America’s steps towards greatness decades ago. Walter O’Malley and Horace Stoneham were baseball manifestations of Lewis & Clark, discovering life west of Chicago and opening the game to new markets in new time zones. Tony La Russa’s vision of using left-handed pitchers only against left-handed batters and of saving his second or third best pitcher on the roster for the last inning to close the game made him baseball’s Henry Ford; this specialization has led to more secure job creation and provided rescue rafts for a handful of the sport’s most prestigious players. Of course, not all of America’s advances have received unanimous support, and that is true of baseball: the introduction of the designated hitter in the American League in 1973 remains controversial to this day.

Despite its seemingly low television ratings, baseball is still remarkably successful, particularly in average attendance. That should make sense: baseball’s position as the nation’s preeminent sport occurred before the mass appeal of television took hold, and people had to go to the games to get the full picture. Baseball is a live sport, and baseball’s recent success can partially be attributed to the construction of new fan-friendly ballparks. Since the opening of Oriole Park at Camden Yards in 1993, twenty franchises have opened new home stadiums, and four others have made significant renovations to their existing homes to placate consumers. Of the remaining six, one franchise has a new ballpark ready to open next year, and two others remain beloved by their fans for either its history (Chicago’s Wrigley Field) or the fact that the fan experience at the ballpark rivals that of even the newest constructions (Los Angeles’ Dodger Stadium).

Despite this, football has seemingly surpassed baseball in America’s national conscious. That’s only natural, because football represents what America idealizes about itself, while baseball represents America as it actually is.

Football is America looking at a magazine cover; baseball is looking in a mirror.

The Critic who Can't Be Criticized

2011-02-13T16:02:00.003-05:00

We have come a long way from Walter Cronkite.

“Uncle Walter,” as he was affectionately known as, was America’s most trusted newsman, and in the turmoil of great societal change, Cronkite seemed to be a steady rock. Of course, Americans at the time had only three major broadcast networks to choose from; today, we have limitless choices thanks to the internet and satellite television and radio.

It should not come as a complete surprise, therefore, that many Americans have moved away from traditional sources of news and have turned against politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. The main beneficiaries in the last few years have been a standup comedian and a shock jock radio host who have become more politically minded, less afraid to rock the boat by making controversial statements, and who are more inclined to have their finger on the pulse of a sector of a deeply divided American discourse.

It is no coincidence, then, that Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck each held rallies on the National Mall last year that drew over 200,000 people. Stewart’s Daily Show tenure has seen him expose the hypocrisy of both politicians and the media, delve through dense government documents and meandering testimonies on Capitol Hill to create context and shine a light on falsehoods, and give young people an outlet in which to express their frustration with business as usual. The fact that Stewart’s show is a comedy show has not deterred many Americans from naming him as one of the legitimate journalists they most admire. Stewart may have been at his sharpest in exposing the Bush Administration for its many sins, but he has thrived in the age of Obama: since January 2009, he has interviewed the President, the First Lady, the Vice President, six of the President’s Cabinet members, and a few of the President’s key advisors.

Glenn Beck may edge towards some comedy on his nationally syndicated radio show, but on his main outlet, Glenn Beck on Fox News Channel, the events taking place under Obama’s reign are no laughing matter. Armed with a chalkboard, a red phone, and the usual array of Fox graphics, Beck has turned himself into a cross between an Old Testament prophet and Howard Beale of Network, and conservative viewers have flocked to him. Despite airing in a timeslot when most people are still in traffic, Beck has the one of the three highest rated news programs on cable. His only rivals are Bill O’Reilly and the aforementioned Stewart.

There is something else, aside from the high cable ratings, extremely devoted fans, and rallies on the National Mall, that tie Stewart and Beck together. Both make loud proclamations and call out others for their sins, but at the same time, strive to inoculate themselves from criticism. Stewart and Beck take different routes to achieve the same goal, and the method that Stewart uses works as a double criticism: the original disparagement is followed by a response from the target that acts as a second condemnation of the target. Beck is not quite as successful in using his defense as a second attack.

Jon Stewart took over The Daily Show in 1999, and the show became almost completely political during the 2000 election, but it was not until an appearance on CNN’s Crossfire on October 15, 2004 that Stewart threatened to become a serious commentator and debuted what some writers have called the “clown nose” defense.

On Crossfire, Stewart ripped into hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for being “partisan hacks”, which “[helped] the politicians and the corporations” at the expense of the people. Stewart argued that while shows such as Crossfire were perhaps originally intended to keep politicians honest, the shows became so cliché and predictable that they did more harm than good, becoming “part of [the politicians and corporations’] strategies”. Carlson countered by reading a list of softball questions that Stewart had asked John Kerry in a recent Daily Show appearance, but Stewart stated that it was not his responsibility, as a comedian, to hold Kerry’s feet to the fire. “I didn’t realize – and maybe this explains quite a bit – that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity”.

While the Crossfire hosts explained that they invited Stewart on to promote his book, Stewart instead took the opportunity “to confront you” because the media was not doing its job, yet he also stated, “If your idea of confronting me is that I don’t ask hard-hitting enough news questions, then we’re in bad shape”. Stewart stated that Crossfire was pure theater and that Begala’s comparison of Crossfire to a legitimate debate was like saying “pro wrestling was a show about athletic competition”. Yet again, when Carlson challenged Stewart about Stewart’s apparent hypocrisy in calling them partisan hacks, Stewart retreated to familiar comedic territory: “The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls”. Yet even after that, he again turned into a serious commentator, telling Carlson and Begala, “You have a responsibility to the public discourse and you’ve failed miserably”.

This marked the first appearance of Stewart’s “clown nose” defense:

Say he's not funny; he tells you he's a concerned citizen. Try to engage him on the point, he tells you he's a comedian; […] Of course he's able to have sincere positions. I just wish he would defend them. "We're a comedy show!" is, in that context, a copout. He's trying to have it both ways.

The Crossfire appearance would not be the last time that Stewart engaged in a very public debate in which he employed this defense.

In 2010, Stewart held his Rally to Restore Sanity, which drew over 215,000 people to the National Mall. Despite never shading his political views on his program, he stressed that this rally was not in support of a partisan side, and launched into an impassioned speech urging politicians and media personalities to be more civil and not to dehumanize each other. It was clear that Stewart was speaking from the heart without a hint of irony or sardonic humor, but when he criticized by Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow for his speech, he again used comedy as an attempt to deflect the criticism. He filmed a black and white vignette featuring himself as a boxer getting pummeled in slow motion to play after each clip of criticism before switching back to a serious address of the criticism: "Contrary to what people may believe, I do believe the rally was about something, just not what they wanted it to be about or what they think it was about."

That mixture of the serious and the unserious is part of Stewart’s playbook, but the fact that he actually addressed their criticism in a serious manner suggested, to the show’s viewers, that Stewart had evolved in his views and recognized his role in the political discourse. Unfortunately, an interview of Stewart by Rachel Maddow a week later showed that Stewart still resorted to the “clown nose” defense when pressed on his responsibilities.

Stewart labeled his program as satire and said, "I feel more of a kinship to Jerry Seinfeld than I do to […] CNN or NBC in that he is able to articulate an intangible” in a way that people who had previous grasped at certain straws could put things together." Maddow countered: “But what I know of your process] seems very similar to the way that I put my show together”. Stewart responded, “We have to, because we’re parodying a news organization […] but the process the material goes through is not a news process”. Maddow pressed him, saying that “a lot of people who watch your show and who watch cable news think of what we do as not that different,” regardless of how they come to such an end. Stewart, though, identified himself as “on solid ground with the footsteps of my ancestors” such as the Smothers Brothers and Bill Maher – comedians “who, with political and social concepts, criticizes them from a haughty yet ultimately feckless perch”. Stewart compared himself to Roger Ebert, who critiques movies but does not make movies of his own. Stewart has defended his approach in the past by saying, “I haven’t moved out of the comedian’s box into the news box; the news box is moving towards me”. That, of course, has fueled much of his denigration of the news business.

Stewart said in the Maddow interview that his rally was an attempt to “deflate a bubble,” and he stressed that he had a chance to “get in the game” with the rally but did not, instead preferring to “stay on the sidelines;” this he contrasted with the news business, who he felt was “on the field”. However, a man who has met with much of the Obama Administration on the air and the Secretary of the Treasury privately is not somewhat without skin in the game. Also, it is worth noting that the Smothers Brothers and Bill Maher, among other “ancestors,” did not take on the outward appearance of a news show when delivering commentary on the news. The closest ancestor to Stewart is the “Weekend Update” portion of Saturday Night Live, but unlike SNL, one-third of Stewart’s nightly program consists of an interview with (usually) a newsmaker or political figure. Stewart may prod lightly in tone depending on who is on the show (as Carlson pointed out about Stewart’s interview with John Kerry), but the interviews are quite substantive, and both President Obama and CNBC host Jim Cramer have been on the receiving end of a tough Stewart interview; indeed, Obama’s press secretary noted that “Jon Stewart is about as good an interviewer as there is in the public domain right now”. Stewart may think of himself as only a comedian, but the format of his show renders it impossible for him to keep himself “out of the game.” Stewart’s comparison to Roger Ebert is flawed as well; a more accurate analogy would be if “Ebert reviewed films by directing video commentaries with a $100 million budget and plenty of” special effects. With all of this in mind, it is disingenuous for Stewart to use the “clown nose” defense.

Despite his shock jock background, Glenn Beck does not consider himself a comedian, so he does not use the “clown nose” defense. The onus of Beck’s on-screen personality is one of a history teacher who educates his audience about the creeping forces of socialism that have been ignored recently but have been attempted in the past. Somewhat ironically, Beck seeks to counter criticism of his history lessons and his overall message through the ignorance defense.

The best examples of Beck’s ignorance defense revolve around his Rally to Restore Honor, which took place on August 28 at the Lincoln Memorial. Even casual students of history could probably inform you that Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech took place at the Lincoln Memorial on an August 28 years before Beck became politically active (1963, the same year Beck was born). Yet Beck, who admits that he is “a college dropout [and] a self-educated guy”, did not realize the trouble:

We picked August 28th; it was open in my schedule, it was open in the park. […] When I announced it, the New York Times blogged immediately that this was MLK Day, and I immediately said, ‘Oh my gosh!’ [….] We would have never made the connection to Martin Luther King if everyone else hadn’t made the connection to Martin Luther King.

Beck then pivoted to a defense of his rally being on the same spot because he was looking to bring the same solutions to America today that he thought Dr. King was attempting to do in the 1960s:

Now what everyone’s bringing up Martin Luther King: what was his solution to the civil rights? Content of character; to be God-driven honorable people of character; well, that’s a universal answer! So does it have anything to do with his speech? No, but is his speech right? Yes: for not just civil rights, but all rights of mankind.

Beck attempted to illuminate the point by inviting Dr. King’s niece, Alveda King, to speak at his rally, and his rally was indeed nonpolitical, urging a return of religious values to American life. Beck convinced himself that this was in line with Dr. King’s thinking, but when he was confronted about Dr. King’s full solution to the civil rights issue on a radio program the day of the rally, Beck again pleaded ignorance:

MADISON: You do not believe President Obama is a racist? […]
BECK: I misunderstood — this I just said the other day — I misunderstood his philosophy and his theology, which is liberation theology.
MADISON: Which was King’s philosophy. Big time.
BECK: Didn’t know that. I’ll talk to Alveda today about it.
MADISON: Oh, talk to his father. You know who you should talk to? Talk to Walter Fauntroy, who grew up with King. That was his philosophy — it was the theological philosophy of social justice.
BECK: Right. I am not a fan of social justice.
MADISON: That’s where we really part. I am a big fan of social justice. […] Maybe we have different definitions of social justice.

The problem with Beck is that he makes grand pronouncements about history without knowing the full scope of history, and he when he is confronted on that fact, he pleads ignorance. In a sense, Beck is a tutor who has elevated himself to the level of professor.

Take a minute for this mental exercise. In some states, fourth graders are evaluated by state governments on their proficiency in American history. Imagine for a second that, during the school year, fourth graders were not taught by accredited adults teaching from state approved textbooks, but they were instead taught by an eighth grader. The eighth grader may be advanced, self-taught, and hungry for knowledge, but the eighth grader is not an adult recognized by the state as proficient enough to teach elementary school. Still, your fourth grade history final hedges upon the knowledge you absorbed from that self-taught eighth grader.

That is Glenn Beck. That is why he is able to successfully plead ignorance when challenged, although unlike Stewart, his defense does not have the added benefit of acting as a second attack on his target. Yet Beck’s defense is doubly effective in regards to his target audience, because despite his enormous financial success, his defense is rooted in anti-elitism. He is able to say, through his ignorance, that he is “one of you.”

Stewart and Beck’s strategy has had varying degrees of success over the years in blunting the criticism of others in the future. Beck has been less successful, as a boycott has robbed his television show of almost all of his sponsors and a liberal website, Media Matters, has been devoted almost exclusively to recording outrageous statements made by Beck and other conservative broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh. Stewart managed to keep himself isolated from major criticism through his “clown nose” strategy for years, but a number of factors have made his defense less effective. The rest of the mainstream media has effusively exalted Stewart over the last three to four years, and several polls showing that a significant portion of young people get their news primarily from Stewart and his protégé, Stephen Colbert, have made his stature hard to deny. The change from a Republican establishment more indebted to the Christian conservative movement and seniors to a Democratic majority of government led by the first African-American president has also made Stewart more important by proxy; as mentioned previously, Democrats looking to turn out younger viewers have to make the obligatory pilgrimage to Stewart’s program. Stewart’s rally, regardless of his intentions, was also a key moment in shattering his defenses against criticism.

Despite this, Beck and Stewart’s attempts to inoculate themselves from criticism have been very successful in rallying their supporters around them and increasing the intensity of that support. Beck, in particular, has cultivated a bunker mentality in which criticism of him often feels gratuitous. Stewart’s defense strategy has made his supporters question the mainstream media even more, which makes them more likely to rally around Stewart. His ratings have soared in the last few years, and, combined with the repeat airings on Comedy Central, Stewart’s numbers have become competitive with Jay Leno’s and David Letterman’s.

Beyond Stewart and Beck, however, is the possibility that their attempts to inoculate themselves from criticism may become more widespread. The shift from an objectivity-based paradigm guided by broadcast television and radio to a new frontier based upon on the anonymity of the internet and Fox News’ attempt to become a visually stimulating newspaper, along with the objective news’ shift into “the comedy box”, may serve as an inspiration for other news personalities to shield themselves from the invective of all opponents without attempting to respond to more rational criticisms. It may not be completely successful from a macro perspective, but as Stewart and Beck have shown, it can generate more intensity from previous supporters and inspire passive independents to tune in to see what the all the fuss is about.

Today we find ourselves in a media climate where personalities do not engage in dialogue but talk through each other. Tomorrow, we may find ourselves in a media climate where our flaws become seen as virtues and all criticism is placed together. Ignoring all criticism in that case will be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

President Obama on President Reagan

2011-01-24T14:24:00.005-05:00

President Obama's USA Today essay celebrating the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan is, on the surface, a stirring tribute to the man. But that's merely on the surface.

Quarreyman News has exclusively obtained the first draft of Obama's essay. The changes made to the original draft are in grey, with the parts taken out put in green.

Barack Hussein Obama Ronald Wilson Reagan was a believer. As a husband, a father, an entertainer, a senator a governor and a president, he recognized that each of us has the power — as individuals and as a nation — to shape our own destiny. He had faith in the American promise; in the importance of reaffirming values like hard work and personal responsibility; and in his own unique ability to inspire others to greatness.

No matter what political disagreements you may have had with President Obama Reagan— and I certainly had my share — there is no denying his leadership in the world, or his gift for communicating his vision for America.

President Obama Reagan recognized the American people's hunger for accountability and change — putting our nation on a bold new path toward both. And although he knew that conflicts between parties and political adversaries were inevitable, he also knew that they would never be strong enough to break the ties that bind us together. He understood that while we may see the world differently and hold different opinions about what's best for our country, the fact remains that we are all patriots who put the welfare of our fellow citizens above all else.

It was a philosophy that President Obama Reagan took to heart — famously saying that he and Republican Speaker John Boehner Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill, with whom he sparred constantly, could be friends after 6 o'clock. It's what led him to compromise on issues as contentious as Social Security and tax cuts. And it's what allowed him to work with leaders of all political persuasions to advance the cause of freedom, democracy and security around the world, including reducing nuclear weapons and imagining a world, ultimately, without nuclear weapons.

But perhaps even more important than any single accomplishment was the sense of confidence and optimism President Obama Reagan never failed to communicate to the American people. It was a spirit that transcended the most heated political arguments, and one that called each of us to believe that tomorrow will be better than today. At a time when our nation was going through an extremely difficult period, with economic hardship at home and very real threats beyond our borders, it was this positive outlook, this sense of pride, that the American people needed more than anything.

When the future looked darkest and the way ahead seemed uncertain, President Obama Reagan understood both the hardships we faced and the hopes we held for the future. He understood that it is always "Morning in America." That was his gift, and we remain forever grateful.

Party Like It's 1999

2010-12-10T18:47:00.003-05:00

I guess the Birthers finally succeeded in overturning Obama's election. Here's the swearing in of our 45th President - the 42nd.

Saturday Night Live usually piggybacks on things, but they envisioned this five years ago:

Quarreyman Video: Postmodern Politics

2010-11-22T23:36:00.001-05:00

Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the struggles of Barack Obama with the public despite great legislative victories.

An Inconvenient Business Decision

2010-11-08T14:26:00.002-05:00

If the National Football League decided to go in a different business direction and stopped showcasing football, one would consider it, to quote our current Vice President, "a big fucking deal."

Perhaps there is no possible way for the NFL to do business without football. Yet that are equally popular corporations based on a specific, tangible thing that could survive without showcasing that "thing."

Imagine a world where Dunkin Donuts stopped selling donuts, or Burger King stopped selling burgers.

Imagine, also, if a major political pop culture figure was a major investor in and inspirational role model for Dunkin Donuts or Burger King.

The news coverage of a Dunkin Donuts pulling dounts from their menu would be immense.

Very few media outlets, however, covered the recent fate of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, one of the cornerstones of Al Gore's effort to combat climate change. The key principle of CCX was its voluntary greenhouse cap-and-trade program.

"Was" is the key word - CCX announced on October 21 that it was discontinuing the program. Instead, CCX will launch a new registry program for carbon offsets. But that represents a monumental failure for climate change enthusiasts in general and Al Gore in particular.

It also represents a major victory for the American ideals of free markets and individual liberty. One of the key figures at American Electric Power, a utility company that participated in the Exchange, sums up CCX's failure:

"Fundamentally with any program that relies on voluntary compliance for something not yet mandated into law, it makes it more difficult ultimately to have as vibrant a market as you'd want," said Bruce Braine, vice president of strategic policy at AEP. "That was the ultimate weakness. For a period of time, up until the last year, a lot of it was thriving on anticipation there would be legislation."

Any business that bases its success on voluntary compliance imposed on a complacent populace should not succeed in America. Its failure both should not be worthy of major news coverage.

But considering that a former Vice President and Oscar award winner was thoroughly repudiated with this move, it should rate some coverage.

Victory?

2010-11-03T14:15:00.003-04:00

Barney Frank retained his seat in the House of Representatives last night, and he gave a speech to his most dedicated supporters about his victory that barely mentioned that victory.

Does this sound like the speech of a guy who won?

If Frank had lost, his speech needed to be tweaked only slightly to sound more like this:

Right-In Candidate

2010-10-27T16:41:00.003-04:00

Justice has prevailed in Alaska, where a judge ruled that voters cannot be handed lists featuring the correctly spelled names of write-in candidates.

One of the benefits of winning a party's nomination, no matter how small, is that the successful candidate has his or her name spelled out successfully on the ballot. For write-in campaigns, anything goes.

Until Liza Blutarski tried to have her cake and eat it too.

When Joe Miller won the Republican nomination for Senate, the incumbent, Lela Meercatski, could've attempted to win another party's nomination, and there were parties looking for candidates: both the Libertarian Party and the Alaska Independence Party were involved in discussions with the Murcatski campaign about this subject. When these discussions fell through and Moocowski was left to pursue a write-in candidacy, she did what her father and her mentor, Ted Stevens, did before her.

She attempted to circumvent the law.

Thankfully, common sense and legal precedent has won the day, leaving Lena Pataski in a precarious position: hoping that her supporters are so dedicated that they remembered how to spell her name properly on the ballots.

It's somewhat amusing to note that if the roles were reversed, Joe Miller would not have such a problem. His is a simple name.

Lola Mittromni is in trouble - but then again, she was in trouble this summer, when she was voted out by her own party. If she had been anything other than a shameless career opportunist who can't wean herself off of the public teat, she would've accepted the voters' judgment and went to work in the private sector.

She might've even founded a business in that sector and named it after herself, and with dedication and hard work, maybe many Alaskans would've come to accept and even adore that brand name.

They'd even be able to remember how to spell her name off the top of their heads.

UPDATE: Son of a bitch. Justice denied.

Quarreyman Video: MiBodega Agency

2010-10-14T11:46:00.001-04:00

Love & Marriage

2010-10-05T00:45:00.007-04:00

The 2010 playoffs are arriving for Major League Baseball, and for the first time in almost ten years, three of the five biggest markets in the country will not be represented. Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston will be making emergency plans in October, while unexpected bridesmaids such as Cincinnati, San Francisco, and Dallas-Fort Worth will be enjoying a limelight that has eluded them so far.

"Bridesmaids" is the important term in that paragraph, because the postseason rests on the tale of four weddings: two figurative weddings between a team and a player, and two literal weddings between husband and wife.

Perhaps there is a marriage between the last number of a year and the best team becoming victorious. For much of the decade, an odd numbered year equaled the coronation of baseball's best team, while an even numbered year rewarded a change in the formula. If one goes back to 2004, one sees a pattern of champions with only two exceptions to this rule:

2004: Boston Red Sox (slight underdog)
2005: Chicago White Sox (overwhelming favorite)
2006 St. Louis Cardinals (ultimate underdog)
2007: Boston Red Sox (overwhelming favorite)
2008: Philadelphia Phillies (slight underdog)
2009: New York Yankees (overwhelming favorite)

If this pattern holds serve, the team that should have the most fear is the Philadelphia Phillies. After dropping ace Cliff Lee but acquiring co-aces Roy Halladay and Roy Oswalt, the Phillies are clearly the best team in baseball. This is a team that won the World Series two years ago and made the World Series last year, and with the swap of the incredibly superior Placido Polanco for Pedro Feliz at third base, the resurrection of Cole Hamels, and a reconstructed bullpen, there seems to be no legitimate challenger, on paper, for the Phils.

If this were an odd-numbered year, they'd be a lock. Alas, this is 2010.

The marriages of Halladay and Oswalt to the Phillies' organization is the key to Philly's success, because there are six teams that do not have the quality and depth of aces as they do. One team stands in their way: the San Francisco Giants. For 25 teams, Jonathan Sanchez would be an ace; on the Giants, he sits at #3, behind the frightening duo of Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain, a young tag team who gives up more years in experience than runs in the game.

The Giants last made the World Series in 2002, but that team could've had your humble blogger and you take 24 out of the 25 roster spots and still make the 7th game of the World Series. The Giants, that year, had the single greatest player in the history of baseball (Barry Bonds circa 2000-2004), and much like Babe Ruth carried some mediocre Yankees teams (pre-1925) to the World Series, so Bonds took a bunch of scab players to the brink.

Giants fans must feel they are cursed, for they were blessed with the best hitter of the decade and the best pitcher of the decade, but neither played with each other. Savvy moves by the Giants GM have given Lincecum a squad of five or six guys that might equal Bonds' production, which is something he has gone without for three years; if they take care of the Atlanta Braves in the ALDS, they may have a shot to unseat the best team in baseball.

The Phillies, however, might be guilty of looking ahead, and while there were three division winners in the American League, none scare the Phillies. The Texas Rangers, with a rehabilitated John Hamilton and Vlad Guerrero (two different types of rehabilitation), are an impressive group with the new best closer in baseball (after Joakim Soria of the KC Royals), but even with the presence of Cliff Lee, the Phils' saving grace in 2009, the Rangers do not match up with the Phillies. The same is true of the plucky Minnesota Twins, who overperform every year and should be the most beloved franchise in baseball. Despite their affability, the Twins pose no serious threat to the Phils' starting rotation of H20 (Halladay, Hamels, Oswalt).

The best record in the AL belongs to the Tampa Bay Rays, who unsuccessfully challenged an inferior Phillies squad in the 2008 World Series after defeating the defending champion Boston Red Sox in an epic seven game encounter. This year's Rays are weaker than the 2008 Rays; that Rays team had two good starters (Scott Kazmir & Matt Garza), while this team has one (David Price). Despite the improved bullpen (Joaquin Benoit and Rafael Soriano replace the aforementioned Price), the Phillies are clearly superior to the squad the bested in '08.

The '10 Phillies only have to worry about two marriages: one needs to succeed, while the other needs to fail. If the American League falls into place like the Phillies imagine, they will stand four games away from the championship with the same foe in front of them that bested them last season.

That foe has changed dramatically. Gone are World Series MVP Hideki Matsui and World Series Hall of Famer Johnny Damon (his double steal during Game 4 will go down with the Eli Manning-David Tyree play and the Larry Bird steal of Isiah Thomas as the most ingenious moments in championship history), and gone, for the most part, is AJ Burnett, who pitched one of the great games in Series history to keep the Yankees even. In their place are Robinson Cano (a nonfactor in last year's playoffs who became as top 3 MVP candidate), Curtis Granderson (a horrible trade bounty until August 15, when Kevin Long's advice led him to swat almost 15 HRs in 40 games), and Phil Hughes (who failed as the 8th inning man in the last playoffs but who proved that he should be the #2 starter this season).

While the Phillies got stronger, the Yankees got weaker. The Yankees lineup includes a broken down Jorge Posada at catcher (who can't throw any baserunner out), an injured Mark Teixeira (a liability in last year's playoffs while healthy), a ghostly Lance Berkman (terrible trade), and an injured Alex Rodriguez (the undisputed MVP of last year's entire playoffs). Of that four, it is expected that Posada produce at the plate and Teixeira in the field, but some reciprocation would be appreciated by Yankees fans. Rodriguez, meanwhile, needs another monstrous postseason to make the ultimate transformation into a Yankee legend: it is worth noting that Don Mattingly, with a broken back at an advanced age, hit .430 in his only postseason appearance. Rodriguez has been blessed with enough postseasons to overcome his early failures: if he carries the Yankees to the World Series, he will have gone through the following transformation: Dave Winfield -> Reggie Jackson -> Mickey Mantle.

Despite the assurance of a tremendous set of outings by CC Sabathia and the hope that Cano, Hughes, Granderson, Rodriguez, and the bullpen straighten things out, Yankees fans must be concerned with two marriages:

Last postseason, Derek Jeter and Nick Swisher were swinging bachelors in New York City; this year, both are engaged to be married. The results have been staggering . . . in both directions.

Swisher, well on his way to being the most beloved right fielder since Paul O'Neill, was acquired in the 2008 offseason after hitting .210. Last season, Swisher hit almost .250 and belted almost 30 HRs, but in the postseason, veteran scouting staffs zeroed in on his weaknesses, and he (along with Robinson Cano) was the most automatic out in the Yankee lineup.

Over the winter, Swisher fell in love with B-list actress Joanna Garcia, and this season, he asked her to marry him. Comfortable in New York and starting a family with a NYC-based actress, Swisher batted about .290, with his usual power production, and drove in 90 RBIs. Last year, Swisher produced from the seventh or eighth spot in the batting order; this year, despite his improvements, he only drove in 90 RBIs batting second, and that has to do with his leadoff man.

Derek Jeter hit .335 last season, and in the playoffs (specifically the World Series), he hit close to that number. The 2009 postseason video may focus on Sabathia, Rodriguez, Damon, and Matsui, but Jeter was right in the middle of the action and showed why he is one of the elite postseason performers in the game. In six World Series, Jeter batted under .300 only twice - his first (against the Hof Braves staff in 1996) and against the ridiculous Diamondback staff of 2001 (where he christened himself as 'Mr. October' with a walkoff HR). Jeter has proven himself to be an elite postseason player - but in those years, he proved himself to be an elite player, period.

After the Yankees won the World Series in 2009, the perennial playboy Jeter, who has spread herpes to every hot starlet in Hollywood and who introduced Tiger Woods to a life of debauchery, proposed to Minka Kelly, the star of Friday Night Lights. While Jeter and his parents were happy that he thought of settling down, Yankees fans were not thrilled with his .270 batting average. Many refuse to blame his personal life on his depreciation, but Jeter had always thrived on being 'The Man', and to this writer, his personal life mirrored his professional life. Every rational man should strive to be inside the following starlets: young Mariah Carey, Vanessa Minnillo, Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel, Jordana Brewster, Tyra Banks, Adriana Lima, Gabrielle Union, Scarlett Johansson, and Ms. Universe Lara Dutta.

Minka Kelly is a beautiful girl, but the facts don't lie: since putting a ring on it, Jeter has lost 60 points on his batting average.

The Phillies lost a chance to repeat last year because of three reasons. The first reason was their lack of a potent force to Alex Rodriguez and Hideki Matsui. Chase Utley tied Reggie Jackson's record for WS HRs, but almost all came against Sabathia, and when the Yankees brought in a lefty specialist, Utley and Howard folded like 2-8 offsuit pairs. Rodriguez, by contrast, cemented himself into postseason legacy.

The Yankees also won due to their superior starting rotation: the first three-man rotation to win the World Series since 1991. Sabathia lost Game 1 against Lee, but Lee's teammates (including an exhausted Hamels) blew the Series and Lee sat out Game 4, which Sabathia pitched and which ultimately decided the Series.

The Phils have an effective counter for Sabathia in Halladay, who can actually go on three days rest. Pettitte and Hamels remains an enticing rematch of last year's Game 3, while the combination of Oswalt and Hughes, who Yankees' AA & AAA scouts compared to Oswalt, would be phenomenal. The Phils' bullpen was upgraded with outside additions, while the Yankees had a mixture of maturity and smooth decisions. The difference remains in the closers, despite Mariano Rivera's September struggles; Rivera over Lidge/Madson is the equivalent of Foreman/Frazier in 1973.

The Phillies remain the favorite to regain the World Series crown, and a combination of Phil Hughes, Alex Rodriguez, Robinson Cano, and Curtis Granderson may even the odds. The true swing in the series, though, remains in the marriages:

Can Halladay dominate the World Series like he did the regular season?

Can Oswalt pitch in a big moment in the bandbox the way he did in the pitchers' paradise of Houston?

Can Swisher continue his hot year in the postseason?

And most importantly:

Can Derek Jeter regain his swing without being a swinger?

Quarreyman Video: Guantanamo Bay

2010-09-30T11:42:00.003-04:00

Q News talks to Fordham Law professor Martha Rayner, who has defended five detainees at the military prison.

The Gambler

2010-09-27T02:23:00.009-04:00

You've got to know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em.

Oliver Stone's sequel to Wall Street opened this week, and his new star, Shia LaBeouf, engaged in some gambling of his own. If Stone were a gambler, he would've wagered LaBeouf's potential winnings against the domestic gross of Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps, but Stone does not play an important position for a New York sports team. There are three prominent examples of the gambling mindset active in New York sports; it's up to the bettor to understand the trends and separate passion from his wagers in order to score big:

1. There are only two active quarterbacks with more consecutive starts than Eli Manning: his brother Peyton, and Brett Favre. While there have been numerous comparisons between the brothers, the Giants' bedrock is closer in nature to the latter than to the former.

Manning is partly responsible for his New York Giants' Week 3 loss against the Tennessee Titans: under immense pressure within yards of the goal line, Eli attempted to loft the ball to an open receiver with his non-throwing hand, resulting in an interception. The Titans won the game 29-10, and Eli did not record a touchdown; while his teammates deserve the majority of the blame for the loss (due to a lack of discipline), Eli has taken shots for his seemingly moronic play.

The left-handed shovel pass was a move taken straight out of the Brett Favre playbook, and it was a move that Peyton Manning would never attempt. But a play that acts as a microcosm of the NFL season reveals an important truth about a player: Eli is a riverboat gambler, and even the most successful gamblers lose big on occasion.

Peyton Manning is on pace to become the greatest quarterback in NFL history, and Peyton Manning would never throw a left-handed shovel pass to his tight end in the end zone for an interception. But do not focus completely on the failures: instead, focus on the complete balance of horrendous failures and glorious successes. Peyton Manning is the smart gambler, folding when he has bad cards and only striking when dealt a favorable hand. Eli Manning, on the other hand, will go for it, even if he does not feel completely comfortable with his situation. Yet it should be noted that the most spectacular failures by great gambles are often accompanied, in the overall win-loss column, by the truly mind-blowing successes.

If a gambler to choose between Peyton and Eli, the gambler must look at Eli's awful left-handed toss this week and remember this crucial lesson:

The quarterback who refuses to attempt an ill-fated left-handed shuffle pass would also refuse to attempt the greatest play in NFL history.

2. The New York Yankees may not deserve to make the playoffs, at least based on their September swoon, but they at least learned a valuable lesson for the future:

Stop babying pitchers.

The Yankees went through this in 2008 and 2009, when Joba Chamberlain, seemingly destined for great things, became an erratic headcase who inexplicably lost velocity on his fastball. Despite their failure with Chamberlain, the Yankees attempted to implement the same strategy with Phil Hughes in 2010.

They were wrong.

In two July starts in which Hughes' turn was skipped in the rotation, Hughes gave up football-like numbers. In two September starts that Hughes was somewhat forced into, he dominated opposing hitters for 5-6 innings before tiring and succumbing to the whims of biased veteran umpires. Unlike many experienced pitchers (such as teammates CC Sabathia and Andy Pettitte), Hughes rarely received the benefit of the doubt from umpires, forcing him to throw more pitches and exert himself in a more taxing manner.

Despite Hughes' own failings (20+ home runs allowed at home) and the umpires' inherent bias against young pitchers, Hughes proved himself to be a tremendous #3 starter for the Yankees' playoff run . . . provided that the Yankees don't screw him over by throwing him off of his rhythm.

A smart gambler would wait to see what the matchups in a potential Yankee series are, and, i-f the games are scheduled close enough, bet on Hughes to produce a strong outing - certainly stronger than AJ Burnett on almost any occasion, CC Sabathia against a mirror image (John Lester, Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay), or Andy Pettitte against a team that steals signs (which the Phillies have done - just as the 2001 Diamondbacks did in Game 6 of the 2001 WS).

3. Baseball observers eagerly await the day that Mariano Rivera stops being the most clutch pitcher in postseason history. That day will arrive in a few weeks, especially since the Boston Red Sox publicized the book on how to beat the great Rivera in the last week of the season.

Great closers are usually hit or miss, with the hits being tremendous. Goose Gossage only gave up two home runs to George Brett, but both were monumental: the turning point of the 1980 ALCS, and a regular season game in 1983 which defined the Yankees' season and threw them off of their equilibrium ("The Pine Tar Game"). Gossage also famously rejected his manager's advice in the 1984 World Series to walk Kirk Gibson; once his fastball was deposited into the upper reaches of Tiger Stadium, both Gossage and his manager knew that the World Series was lost.

Gossage was not the only Hall of Fame closer victimized by Gibson: perhaps the most famous baseball moment of the last 50 years saw an elite closer get smacked around by Gibson. Dennis Eckersley was considered the greatest relief pitcher of all time by a unanimous vote until Rivera made his name known, but while Eck won a World Series and accumulated tremendous stats, his blown save in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series stands as the premier moment of his career.

Rivera has avoided such mischief despite blowing a playoff series with a home run (Sandy Alomar in Game 4 of the 1997 ALDS) and blowing a World Series (Game 7 in 2001). The Alomar HR was swept away with the knowledge that Rivera was growing into the role of closer (and three straight World Series championships to follow), and the 2001 Series was rationalized through a combination of sheer luck (his errors on sacrifice bunts) and cheating (Luis Gonzalez, who muscled a great Rivera pitch over the head of Derek Jeter to win the Series, is one of the prime suspects of the "Steroid Era").

Rivera's two blown saves in the greatest collapse in baseball history are far more instructive for predicting his future playoff failures. The 2004 ALCS saw Rivera blow 2 saves, although he pitched out of both blown saves to give his team a chance to win the game in extra innings. Both blown saves seem appropriate given his circumstances in 2010 and his opposition in the 2010 postseason.

Game 5 saw Rivera inherit a bases loaded situation with one out in the 9th inning. Joe Torre, weary of using Rivera in multiple innings on consecutive nights, pitched Tom Gordon, and Gordon promptly allowed David Ortiz to make it a game and loaded the bases. Rivera, brought on by a panicked Torre, allowed a shallow sacrifice fly that technically tied the game; the run, and the fault, belonged to Rivera's setup man and his manager. Apparently, Rivera would be considered a failure if he did not strike out three batters in a row.

The Yankees' bullpen this year revolves around Joba Chamberlain, Boone Logan, David Robertson, and Kerry Wood. Logan has become manager Joe Girardi's lefty specialist, but if he gives up a hit, he is done for the night; Robertson, a baseball Houdini, has not inspired enough confidence in Girardi to use him as a primary setup man, even though Robertson was magnificent in last year's playoffs and throughout the season. That leaves Girardi with Joba and Wood, both of whom are susceptible to baserunners. Wood, in particular, has been outstanding, but many of his outs have been hit hard. He is vulnerable to a rally, putting Rivera in an untenable situation.

Game 4 of the '04 ALCS, however, is more relevant. In that game, a batter reached first on a walk. A pinch runner was called for, and the runner immediately stole second. Standing in scoring position, the runner let out a silent cheer as the next batter hit a ball just under Rivera's foot into center field to tie the game.

The most miraculous aspect of this comeback is not the Sox's tying of the game, nor Rivera's escape to propel the game to extra innings. In fact, the true miracle is that the Sox's strategy was not adopted for another six years, a half decade in which an aging Rivera proved himself to be not only the greatest relief pitcher of all time, but the only relief pitcher who deserves serious consideration among the top 25 pitchers in baseball history.

In September 2010, the Red Sox finally figured out how to beat Rivera: if they could just get a runner onto first base, they could steal both second and third. With the infield drawn in, either a sacrifice fly or a hard hit ball past the ill-positioned infield would make Rivera a loser. Despite losing the battle, the Red Sox won the war.

The 2009 Yankees were a juggernaut expected to roll over the competition. The 2010 Yankees, by contrast, may finish first among equals, but with the Texas Rangers and Tampa Bay Rays waiting, the Yankees are vulnerable, especially in the 9th inning. Rivera has always been an illusionist, but he is prone to broken bat bloop hits and stolen bases. Rivera generates his power through his high leg kick: a high leg kick that guarantees a moderately speedy runner scoring position. Rivera experimented with holding runners on in August in Texas; with almost no leg kick, Rivera allowed a 410 foot rocket off the bat of Nelson Cruz and said prayers of thanksgiving that the Texas center field war was 411 feet away.

Rivera can, and will, be beat by teams that steal bases for a living. The steroid era, in which Rivera thrived, saw teams sitting back and waiting for hard hit baseballs, something Rivera gives up as often as America elects its president. The post-steroid era, however, favors the speedy, and closers in general - and Rivera in particular - have seen their effectiveness drop.

This is not Eric Gagne, Joe Nathan, Trevor Hoffman, or Jonathan Papelbon. We are discussing Mariano Rivera, one of the 25 greatest pitchers in baseball history. But we are discussing him in 2010.

Just as we discussed Willie Mays in 1973.

Of course, Mays made the World Series that year, and while he embarrassed himself in the outfield in Oakland, his Mets took a juggernaut As team to the 7th game of the World Series, in Oakland.

At this hour, the Philadelphia Phillies are the likely benefactors of home field advantage for the World Series, and like the early '70s As, they look unstoppable.

Despite the playbook on Rivera being widespread, the 40 year old remains widely respected, much like the over-the-hill Mays was throughout his career.

9th inning, Game 7, Citizens Bank Park, with Rivera facing Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, and Jayson Werth?

I'd gamble on Rivera.

3 Games That Didn't Change The Game

2010-09-21T10:19:00.005-04:00

. . . and One That Did

Ron Jaworski, one of ESPN's true football experts, has just published The Games That Changed the Game, a look at seven individual games in which major tactical advancements were introduced for the first time. Along with the debut of Buddy Ryan's 46 defense, Dick LeBeau's zone blitz scheme, and Bill Walsh's West Coast offense, Jaworski includes Bill Belichick's defensive gameplan for Super Bowl 36. Jaworski claims that at Belichick's direction, New England Patriot defenders crushed Marshall Faulk on every play, even when Faulk didn't receive the ball.

With that in mind, let's look at three games that didn't change the game:

1. February 3, 2002: This game is the only Jaworski selection of the last 18 years, and Jaws knew that when he selected the game, it would cause controversy. It is a controversial selection - mainly because it doesn't fit with the theme of the book.

The first six games selected displayed an advanced scheme that the rest of the league was not ready for. It was difficult to conceive of the deep ball being the primary vehicle for offense in 1964. It was difficult to think of a using a tight end as a primary wide receiver in 1980. It was downright ridiculous to think of using a short passing game as a substitute for the running game in 1981.

It is not that difficult to think of hitting somebody on every play, for it is the goal of the defensive line on every passing down. Defensive linemen attack the quarterback; that's what they're paid to do. To extend this concept to a running back does not a quantum leap in thinking; it is a logical extension of the game, especially when Marshall Faulk saw the ball almost as much as Kurt Warner during the 2001 season.

Belichick's tactics changed one game: Super Bowl 36.

2. January 27, 1991: Belichick became a defensive legend for his gameplan to stop the run and gun Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl 25. The Jim Kelly-led Bills offensive appeared unstoppable leading up to the game, but the New York Giants limited them to 19 points and won the Super Bowl. Belichick's defensive gameplan was placed into the football Hall of Fame.

A closer look at the game shows Belichick to be unworthy of such a distinction.

The Giants' offensive gameplan was to hold onto the ball as long as possible, thereby limiting the amount of snaps Belichick's defense would have to play against that unstoppable offense. With an effective short passing attack and a more than healthy dose of power running, the Giants kept the ball for over 40 of the game's 60 minutes.

The Bills' time of possession was 19:27. The Bills scored 19 points. For those keeping score at home, Belichick's vaunted defensive gameplan hemorrhaged a point for every minute they were on the field.

There are two asterisks involved with that tally. The first is that two of the Bills' 19 points came on a safety; in reality, Belichick's defense only allowed 17 points. That's true, but the second asterisk is even more incriminating: Wide Right. If the Bills had a competent kicker, they would've won the game at the last second, scoring 22 points. That is 20, excluding the safety, and a tally of more than a point per minute against a so-called Hall of Fame defensive gameplan.

The Giants lost Belichick after the game, and it took both Belichick and the Giants about a decade to recover. The gameplan did not change the game of football in the near term, because the Bills appeared in the next three Super Bowls. And the strategy itself was officially declared dead during the 2009 season, when the Miami Dolphins used the gameplan against the Peyton Manning-led Indianapolis Colts, the successor to Kelly's Bills. Miami held onto the ball for an insane 45 minutes . . . and lost the game.
3. September 21, 2008: Coming up against a Belichick coached Patriots that had gone 18-0 before losing the Super Bowl, the Miami Dolphins, who went 1-15 the previous season, needed to do something out of the box. The Dolphins knew that they had no chance if they employed a conventional strategy against the Patriot juggernaut, even if that team had lost Hall of Fame bound quarterback Tom Brady two weeks earlier. The Dolphins had quarterback issues of their own.

Enter the Wildcat.

The Dolphins effectively did without a quarterback for many key plays. With running back Ronnie Brown lining up in the shotgun, and fellow RB Ricky Williams coming in from the side, the Dolphins employed a smoke and mirrors strategy that would make any magician blush. Brown could run the ball himself; he could hand the ball off, or pitch it, to Williams for a run; or, most impressively, Brown could fake a run and then throw the ball to an open receiver. Led by Brown's versatility, the Dolphins crushed the Patriots, 38-13.

The NFL is a copycat league, and the next season, over two-thirds of NFL franchises attempted to use a variation of the Wildcat. With great success, this innovation could have truly changed the game of football.

The problem was soon on display for all to see: only the Dolphins could work the damn thing properly.

Every other team lacked the ingenuity of the Dolphin scheme and the talent necessary to run the scheme correctly. Not everyone had Ronnie Brown's deft moves and superior throwing arm; not everyone had a Ricky Williams, complete with fresh legs from a multiple year suspension, ready to outrun the defense; not everyone had an offensive line that could bulldoze the opposition.

No one had the combination of the three except the Dolphins. So while the Dolphins may have changed their team's hopes, the game at large remained in a state of inertia.

***It may seem that this article is focusing unfairly on the hoodie-wearing functional mute who coached the New England Patriots to three Super Bowl victories in four years and orchestrated the league's first 18 win start. This is not, however, out of any personal vitriol towards Belichick; this merely acknowledges that some of the more highly thought of and supposedly "influential" moves that he was a part of, directly or indirectly, not have the effect of changing the game forever.

In the interest of fairness, we will end looking at one Belichick operation that did change the game of football forever:

4. January 16, 2005: Peyton Manning's Colts were the undisputed offensive juggernaut of the NFL, making opposing defenses look silly. In the opening round of the playoffs, Manning dropped 49 points on the Denver Broncos, setting up a rematch of the previous year's AFC Championship Game: Colts at Patriots. In that game, Manning was intercepted four times, and the Patriots went on to the Super Bowl, winning 27-17. This time, Manning was determined to perform better.

It didn't matter that he did. Manning only threw one interception, but his offense was completely stymied by the Patriots' unrelenting defense. Manning's offense was held to 3 points and 276 yards, and his receivers were mauled on every play by the Patriots' defensive backs. It was a miracle that Manning managed to perform as well as he did.

The Patriots scored 20 points and held the ball for over 37 minutes, leaving Manning little time to operate. When he did, he watched almost helplessly as Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne were mugged as soon as the ball snapped and thrown off their precision-based timing routes by vicious defensive play. Manning, too, was mugged by a precise blitzing scheme that left him, more than a few times, on the cold tundra.

This game was the culmination of Belichick's career, combining the time of possession domination that helped win Super Bowl 25 and the thuggish tactics that helped decide Super Bowl 36. This was his finest hour, and while he needed to win at Pittsburgh in the AFC Championship Game and win the Super Bowl in order to cement his status as an all-time coach, this was the game everyone remembers from the 2004 campaign.

In response to the Patriots' unrelenting ambush, Colts general manager Bill Polian lobbied to have the league's rules changed. The NFL adopted some of his suggestions, and the Patriots were no longer allowed to act in such a manner. If there was contact initiated by a defensive back more than five yards from the line of scrimmage, a penalty would now be called, with a first down awarded to the offense. Defensive backs had to hold themselves back, and offense soon exploded, reaching its zenith last season, when nine quarterbacks threw for over 4,000 yards - a previously special milestone.

The Colts won the Super Bowl in 2006 and returned to the Super Bowl in 2009, thanks partially to these rules; the Patriots only made the Super Bowl once more, in 2007, but by that time, the team more closely resembled the Manning juggernaut than any of their own previous Super Bowl victors.

If a defensive gameplan can make the league change its rules, then the head coach and de facto defensive coordinator can rest assured that his game changed the game.

Burning Justice

2010-09-14T14:18:00.004-04:00

Samuel Chase is a unique figure in American history: the only Supreme Court Justice to be impeached.

Twice the number of Presidents have been impeached. Like Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, Chase was not removed from office, saved by a Senate vote. Chase, like Johnson, was a victim of political circumstance, challenging a recently passed political law. Clinton was impeached for perjury, but that, too, was seen as political by a majority of the American people.

It may be time to add Clinton's second Supreme Court appointee to the list of the impeached.

Stephen Breyer, in an interview on Good Morning America, was asked about the recent Quran burning controversy. His response was almost as offensive to constitutional scholars as a Quran burning would be to devout Muslims:

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?” …

“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases - and not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

In other words, if your words or actions will cause other people to go crazy and lead to a great loss of life, you do not have the constitutional protection to go through with your action.

See, if you burn an American flag, or a Bible, that's no big deal to Breyer; you can still do that, because there will be no "trampling", so to speak. Allah forbid, though, that you burn a Quran.

There are two major offenses Breyer commits here: one constitutional, and one against the very group he attempts to stand beside.

First, numerous courts have affirmed over the years the freedom of opinion, specifically that the federal government cannot stifle opinion. Calling out "fire" in a crowded theater was ruled unconstitutional because it revolved around a statement of fact: Either there's a fire, in which case people should evacuate, or there's not. Burning the Quran is a religious or political statement of opinion - government intrusion into this case will inevitably insinuate that one religion is truer than the others, and that violates the separation of church and state that is a bedrock of this country.

Based on Breyer's reasoning, burning a Bible is not on the same level as burning a Quran, due to the response incurred by that burning. Do we then reclassify free speech to not include cartoon drawings of Mohammad, Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and any other publication that offends Muslims.

What does say about Muslims? Is Breyer not insinuating that Muslims are unable to control themselves in a decent and dignified manner? Is Breyer not implicitly stating that Muslims are not on the same level as Americans, or that they are perhaps uncivilized?

It seems to me that Breyer's comments may be almost as insulting to Muslims as they are to constitutional scholars. Yet that is for Muslims to sort out.

For Breyer's complete warping of the constitution and trampling of the First Amendment, impeachment should become an option for him.

Let the Chase begin.

UPDATE: Breyer has successfully walked back, at least for now, any impeachment discussion due to a far more thoughtful exchange on Larry King's show:

CNN’s Larry King: There’s no doubt that Pastor Jones, little church in Florida, had the right, he has the right to burn the Quran, doesn’t he?

Breyer: Yeah, I said it depends on what analogy you use, but the most one analogous case is that there was — you have the right to burn an American flag as a symbol....

King: ... Does [the flagburning decision] make us a great country?

Breyer: It helps. It helps.... [W]hat we’re saying is we protect expression that we hate. And protecting expression that we hate is not the only good thing in the world, but it is one good thing in the world. And when you have a country of 300 million different people who think different things, it is helpful. It is helpful to tell everyone, you can think what you want.

King: Hard for other people to comprehend why Nazis can march —

Breyer: There they are. You know, it’s so often I hear people say — and particularly this is a college students, sir. Well, that’s just so terrible what he’s saying. I say, oh, you think that free speech is only for people who don’t say things that are terrible....

Good for Breyer. Call off the dogs.

Metropolitan Metaphors

2010-09-04T17:14:00.004-04:00

Throughout history, time and civilization have been measured through the lens of the city. From democratic Athens to imperial Rome, from Crusade-afflicted Jerusalem to revolutionary Paris, cities have been used as metaphors to tell the story of a people or culture as a whole.

The 20th century saw the world become more interconnected than ever before. New advantages in technology have changed the way humans understand time: our attention spans grow ever shorter with new media, and for the 20th century, the decade became the dominant measure of a population's interests and actions ("The 60s, the 70s, the 80s", etc.).

With that in mind, one can see how the world navigated a decade by focusing on one city:

1910s - ST. PETERSBURG - A city in which civil unrest, nationalist pride, and intellectual ideas dreamt up by those who has successfully avoided war leads to bloody conflict and the total destruction of the old order. This applies not only to the communist-provoked civil war in Russia but to Woodrow Wilson's forays into Mexico and the Great War.

1920s - CHICAGO - While the United States threw one of history's craziest parties, Europe struggled to cope with the aftermath of an unprecedented situation and the bad guys began to find ways to maximize their influence. These unsavory characters included not only Benito Mussolini of Italy and the leaders of the Nazi Party, but Lucky Luciano and Al Capone. Not that it should be compared with the horrors of the Great War, but America's flirtation with prohibition upset the established order and opened lucrative channels for career criminals.

1930s - BERLIN - The uneasy tension brought about by the increasing power of monsters like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, combined with the complete failure of the League of Nations was felt throughout the world, but no place was this more prevalent than in the capital of the Reich.

1940s - BERLIN - The world went from being at war to being divided between the two most powerful victors.

1950s - LOS ANGELES - Hollywood became the center of culture for over half of the world, yet due to segregation, half of the city was essentially shut out of the full experience. An arms race of epics began, with Cecil B. DeMille and a host of other directors competing over who could make the greatest film.

1960s - LONDON - Swinging counterculture, the rise of recreational drugs, and American blues and rockabilly given a decided English twist. The Austin Powers movies reflect an exaggerated version of this, but only slightly. From Americans like Jimi Hendrix making London an unofficial home to politicians like Harold Wilson desperately attempting to fit in, London became the axis around which the world turned, even if the four men most responsible for that development hailed from Liverpool.

1970s - BAGHDAD - The OPEC oil embargo placed the entire Middle East onto the world's center stage, but embargo would never have happened without the forceful backing of Iraqi Vice President Saddam Hussein, who (ironically) acted as the Dick Cheney to his aging, somewhat figurehead boss. With the rest of world decaying and stagnating, Hussein attempted to return Baghdad to its 10th century peak and nearly succeeded before pissing away all of his accomplishments beginning in 1980.

1980s - TOKYO - The 80s were an unashamedly capitalist decade, and while the rise of Solidarity in Poland, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, and Ronald Reagan in the USA, combined with the fall of Mao Zedong in China, sent those nations into a frenzy of deregulation, nowhere was this embrace of the market more prevalent than in the technological center of the world. By the 1980s, the Japanese dominated the automobile, communication, and real estate markets, and even the US was worried about a coming Japanese decade.

1990s - NEW YORK CITY - From a concrete Wild West to an urban Disneyland, perhaps no city changed as much in the course of ten years as the home of the Yankees. The 90s were a time where it seemed that everyone was doing well, and the problems others suffered were pushed out of the spotlight, leaving the center of the empire as a fantasy island. From Belgrade and Rwanda to Brooklyn and The Bronx, the cries of those on the fringes did not affect those in their own little worlds.

2000s - DUBAI - A house of cards that fell when it was exposed that the books were cooked and nothing was real. Enron, the Iraq War, the ownership society, the economic might of China, the Obama stimulus - all of these and more could fit in the luxury suites of the Burj Al Arab.

2010 NFL Predictions

2010-08-31T23:30:00.004-04:00

With the new season of pro football imminent, many pros and amateurs are making predictions, with most relying on standard "Who will make the playoffs?" formulas. These formulas are fools' errands. A more honest, and more accurate, Nostradamus focuses on individual thoughts, both shallow and deep.

-The NFL has become America's national game through superior marketing. In 2010, marketing synergy has reached heights that none would dare to think of.

Think of a hypothetical AFC rematch from last year's Wild Card Weekend. Last year, the Bengals and Jets represented the communities of Cincinnati and the New York tri-state area. This year, that matchup pits VH1 against HBO.

-America has become a nation in which the rich get richer and the middle class is evaporating. Many are wondering how they can even the playing field and gete rich quick. Fear not, "real" America! If you see the false prophets in your midst, you can leverage that knowledge into success.

This year's "Goldline"-level false prophets are HBO's own New York Jets. A team that was 7-7 with two weeks to play last year happened upon a team that laid down like a porn star, a wounded duck franchise whose top receiver passed away midseason, and a perennial choke artist franchise before getting shredded in the AFC Championship Game. In response, the Jets signed every convict and retiree in sight before painting a giant target on their backs and signing with HBO.

If you want to get rich, do the following: bet your mortgage on the Jets missing the playoffs.

-That is not to say that the Miami Dolphins will take the Jets' place in the AFC wild card chase. The Dolphins signed tempermental stud Brandon Marshall and looked poised to make a leap to playoff status, but two things should be noted about the potential Chad Henne-to-Marshall connection.

First, almost no premier wide receiver who has been traded to a new team succeeded with that team. Fans fondly remember Cris Carter's renaissance with the Minnesota Vikings and Jerry Rice's success with the Oakland Raiders, but both receivers signed as free agents - they were not traded. Second, Henne is not, nor will be, a franchise NFL quarterback. There are about 13 franchise QBs in the NFL currently; the Dolphins do not have one of those baker's dozen.

-Terrell Owens may not be washed up; Chad Johnson may also not be past his prime. Their quarterback, Carson Palmer, is, and that spells trouble for the Bengals.

-Joe Flacco is a pretty decent quarterback, and the Baltimore Ravens may well win the AFC North this season, but widespread preseason predictions of Raven dominance are unfounded. The Ravens defense, long their strong suit, is hobbled by injury and contract issues, and Flacco is, at best, near the bottom of that baker's dozen of elite QBs.

If the Ravens want to be a permanent fixture atop the AFC, they need to coopt a sorority and send those coeds Big Ben's way.

-The Houston Texans are the Brooklyn Dodgers of 21st century football: "They looked real good in parts, but wait til next year!" For all of their offensive fireworks, next year may never come for the Texans, and this year will not see them supplant the Peyton Mannings in the AFC South.

-The real threat to the Manning franchise does involve the fleet feet of a Texas legend. Once Vince Young was installed as the starting QB, the Titans posted a white-hot 8-2 record to bring respectability to a franchise that had lost its first six games. With Chris Johnson setting records on the ground, a full season of Young will lead to an impressive Titans season - and contention in the playoff race.

-With the exodus of Donovan McNabb from Philadelphia, expect Jeremy Maclin to put up more impressive numbers than last year's most exciting phenom, DeSean Jackson. Jackson accumulated his stats through a number of big plays, almost all of which relied on McNabb's superior ability to throw the deep ball. While Kolb has that ability, he will be more comfortable throwing short and intermediate passes, where MacLln will pick up the slack.

-Kolb, though, will be the only NFC East quarterback who can sleep peacefully at night. With either aging or perpetually ineffective offensive lines in front of them, Tony Romo, McNabb, and Eli Manning will be running for their lives.

-Besides those three QBs, one man who will be running quite a bit this season will be Adrian Peterson. Last season saw the Brett Favre Extravaganza place Peterson on the back burner, but with Favre's ankle injury, the unfortunate situations of Percy Harvin and Sidney Rice, and the departure of competing running back Chester Taylor, Peterson will shoulder the majority of the Vikings' offensive hopes.

-With that said, Brett Favre and the Vikings (a 1960s British Invasion band name if I've ever heard one) will not win their division and compete for a #1 seed. Favre has been surpassed by his successor in Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers, and those Packers will once again reign in the NFC North.

-The Packers will not be Favre's only issue: the most improved team in the NFL will be the perpetual laughingstock known as the Detroit Lions. With a dominant defensive line and a legit blue chipper in Matt Stafford, the Lions will raise hell in the North and compete for a playoff spot.

-The only bright spot in the NFC West, besides Mike Singletary's locker room speeches, will be St. Louis Rams' rookie QB Sam Bradford. With a suspect offensive line, the Oklahoman will be whipped like a government mule, but his skill and toughness will shine through.

Keeping the Faith

2010-08-23T23:48:00.004-04:00

The good old days weren't all that good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems. - Billy Joel, 1983

Nostalgia is not only a peculiar phenomenon, but it's a powerful aphrodisiac.

The presidency of Barack Obama has satisfied few Americans. The right considers Obama a Muslim communist, the left considers him a corporate lapdog, and the vast middle of the country is confused by the fact that in a time of high unemployment, the administration is addressing seemingly every issue other than Joe Biden's favorite three letter word: J-O-B-S.

Last year, Obama's visit to Martha's Vineyard saw a significant number of small business owners attempt to capitalize on the visit by selling Obama-themed T-shirts. This year, Obama's visit saw business owners again work their magic. Their best selling shirt of summer 2010?

It's difficult to imagine that the country is missing a president whose approval ratings levitated around 30% for his last two and a half years. Yet the Ground Zero mosque controversy has given Bush some strange new bedfellows.

It helps, of course, that Bush, like his father, is turning into an exemplary ex-president. Bush has refused to criticize Obama, unlike other less gracious members of his administration, and his recent unannounced welcoming home of combat veterans brought tears to the eyes of those soldiers.

It's not just the most recent ex-president who has enjoyed a renaissance in unlikely quarters. The tenacious 2008 campaign of Hillary Clinton raised a number of eyebrows among all but the most hardened Republicans. Memories of her husband's stunning political turnaround after the 1994 midterm election slaughter, combined with the incredible economic growth his administration presided over, have led many on the right and in the center pining for a return to the glory days of the Clintons - and, perhaps, have led many of those voters to regret their failure to vote for a return of the First Family in early 2008.

This is where nostalgia, like oysters and conch chowder, has waved its magic wand over the American public. There is a great tendency to accentuate the faults of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania and forget about the faults of those who have moved on.

In the modern era, this began with the ascension of Richard Nixon. Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman left office under similar circumstances, but with the rise of the devious, unlikeable Nixon, many Democrats began pining for the honesty and integrity of Dwight Eisenhower. Of course, Eisenhower was blasted throughout his tenure by these same voters as being out-of-touch, irrelevant, and disengaged. Nixon's micromanagment made Eisenhower's aloofness seem enchanting.

Jimmy Carter was rightly regarded as a disaster by the end of his term, but with Ronald Reagan's hardcore conservative agenda in full flight, Democrats again began to show grudging respect to Reagan's predecessors: Nixon for his more liberal policy agenda, and Ford for his general decency.

Interestingly, the scandal-a-day Clinton years should have easily provided an opening for a Carter resurgence among Republican memories, but the general public's disillusion with the Reagan era forced conservatives to fiercely whitewash Reagan's legacy and paint him as the patron saint of American politics. In order to successfully manage that transition, Carter needed to be pounded into dust even moreso in the 1990s than he was in the 1980s. This hero worship of Reagan continues to this day and borders on necrophilia; Democrats during the Bush years refused to credit Reagan for anything other than being more intelligent and more peaceful than Bush 43, even though in the 1980s, they considered Reagan to be the dumbest warmonger ever elected Presdent.

In 2010, the legacies of Clinton and Bush are being seen in a softer light, but the interesting thing is that the two men represent two polar opposites. Bush and Clinton stand as the yin and yang of American politics.

Those who cry out for a Clinton renaissance remember the days of 4% unemployment, sustained economic growth, a deficit reduction that led to projected surpluses at the end of his term, and a time of relative peace. The 1990s were a time when radical Islam took a backseat to MTV and The Simpsons. The Clinton Administration presided over arguably the best time in history to be an American - and it is the administration that the people want.

Clinton the man stepped on his own dick countless times, leading to an unprecedented number of Congressional investigations. He, his wife, and various cabinet officers created unnecessary tsunamis of bad choices, from the federal massacre at Waco to the government kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez; from the firing of travel office workers to the illicit fundraising backed by the Chinese government. The high water mark came in 1998, when the entire nation was thrown into an impeachment crisis because Clinton refused to admit that he received oral sex from an intern.

Bush the man stood as a polar opposite. Despite his warmongering reputation, Bush repeatedly stressed that Islam was a religion of peace, worked well with his opponents in Congress, and made a number of unseen but significant gestures during his war years, including countless visits to the Walter Reed hospital and abstaining from golf. It is this Bush that even some of his most tenacious critics miss during this Ground Zero mosque debate.

Bush's administration, on the other hand, may have been the most destructive and incompetent collection of bureaucrats and policymakers in American history. Bush's key appointees included political cronies that upended centuries of tradition (Alberto Gonzales and Porter Goss); truly incompetent and unqualified hacks (Mike Brown and Christie Whitman); mindblowingly corrupt criminals (Richard Perle and Gale Norton); and mini-Napoleons who created vast new power structures out of opportune crises (Henry Paulson and Donald Rumsfeld). To top it off, he found a man who combined all of those qualities and added pure evil to the equation; that man appointed himself as Bush's Vice President, and it will take the combined efforts of dozens of future administrations to roll back Dick Cheney's dark works during one eight year term.

We don't really forget about all of these things. Somewhere in the back of our minds, we remember every Bush blunder, and we recall Clinton's slimy personal character. Yet the vicious cycle of politics makes it convenient for us to only think of the good things.

Someday, we will block out Barack Obama's thin skin and petty attitude, and we will forget the devious acts of Tim Geithner and stupid statements of Eric Holder.

For now, though, Obama bares the brunt of our blame, even though he does not deserve all the scorn thrown his way.

For now, Bush and Clinton look pretty good.

Let us not forget that at one time, they, too, were Barack Obama.

Quarreyman Video: Party Promoting

2010-08-09T17:45:00.001-04:00

High Voltage

2010-08-03T18:55:00.005-04:00

With the impending arrival of the Chevy Volt, the federal government (the official owners of General Motors) believe that the era of energy efficient automobiles has truly begun.

Hold onto your wallets.

The Volt is set to cost $41k before tax credits and rebates kick in - and that's the bargain basement version with minimal features. For purchasing a $43k car, the main rebate won't mean too much: $7500 for the Volt's battery pack, which will give you 40 miles per gallon before the switch to gasoline. All told, the car is quite expensive, especially a car with less room than a similar product costing $17k, but wait! The feds are offering a lease program for the Volt that would only cost $350 a month for three years! Of course, this New York Times op-ed points out the strict regulations provided: those taking the lease cannot exceed 12,000 miles a year. According to the author, Edward Neidermeyer:

Assuming you charged your Volt every evening, giving you 40 miles of battery power, and wanted to keep below the mileage limit, you would rarely use its expensive range-extending gas engine.

This blog does not care about advertising for or bashing a terrible car. There are two deeper issues at play, one raised in the Times op-ed and one raised by the de facto head of GM (and Chrysler) more than two years ago.

First comes the issue of the Toyota Prius. As the op-ed explains, Toyota priced the Prius at $17k despite the fact that the price was slightly higher than the costs of manufacturing those cars. Toyota was willing to take heavy losses for a number of years with the foresight of recouping its investment when oil prices climbed through the roof.

GM and the federal government refuse to go down that road, instead hoping for a good quarterly stock report to boost confidence. Taxpayers, who were soaked for billions, do not want to buy the car as a charity case in the hope that their fleecing was worth it. What one is left with are smart consumers and dumb businessmen - which politicians usually are.

Back to the Prius, though, and the reason for its success: the spike in oil prices. Toyota's executives rightly foresaw that the peak oil crisis would lead to desperate moves from the world's prime players. With the United States rushing headlong into Iraq at the behest of some of those prime players, oil prices soared.

Toyota, though, is a private company. General Motors, for the time being, is being led by Barack Obama and the US Congress, two entities that can artificially inflate the price of fossil fuels and attempt to indirectly strongarm the American people into buying Volts.

How on earth is this ethical?

Since the beginning of the Reagan era, crony capitalism has raged, where the rich got richer and screwed over the poor while enjoying the perks of government deregulation. Many Americans, fed up with over a quarter century of the market being maniuplated to the detriment of their standard of living, voted for a Democratic Congress and Obama to stem the tide.

Instead, the ultimate crony capitalism may now occur - the ultimate monopoly. The federal government used to be in the business of breaking up monopolies and busting trusts. Today, the Justice Department would scoff at the idea of stopping its own protection racket.

During the 2008 primaries, Obama did say that his policies would make electricity prices "necessarily skyrocket." Now, as the head of GM, he is set to reap the rewards.

Unfortunately for an administration that likes to refer to itself as unprecedented, this scheme has happened before in American history. In the mid-1800s, entire towns were formed where the main employer paid his workers not in dollars but in a made up currency that was only accepted at stores in the town run by the employer. Eventually, the federal government stepped in and outlawed those arrangements.

This is the problem with big government in a nutshell: when the feds get too big and take on too many tasks, they can't do the tasks they were supposed to in the first place.

Hank & Hal's Hessians

2010-07-30T05:54:00.004-04:00

Nostalgia is a peculiar phenomenon.

It's natural to forget about some of the bad things that occurred in the past and only play up the good; it's not natural, however, for facts to become distorted or even challenged during this process.

The New York Yankees have, by far, the highest payroll in Major League Baseball, and with that payroll, the Yankees field an All-Star-level player for each position. This has caused great angst for many in the baseball world over the past decade, despite the fact that the Yankees only won two World Series (and appeared in four).

When reporters were certain that the Seattle Mariners were going to trade Cliff Lee to the Yankees, many otherwise rational actors lost their minds. Mike Francesa, perhaps the biggest Yankee fan on radio, bemoaned the impending trade, saying that the trade would make the season irrelevant and a World Series victory cheap. Compared to the 1996 Yankees, Francesa pouted, this potential championship would be hollow and bought off with mercenaries.

This is ridiculous. After enduring a historic loss to the rival Boston Red Sox and repeated first round playoff exits, the Yankees' 2009 championship was one of the sweetest wins in franchise history, rivaling only the 1996 campaign in recent memory. In fact, one could say that the 2009 campaign was sweeter because it was more of an in-house project.

Forget about the sentimental emotions surrounding the rise of the Core Four (and Bernie Williams). Instead, look at the postseason rosters to see who got the the penthouse party from the ground floor:

1996: Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, Bernie Williams, Jim Leyritz, Andy Fox, Brian Boehringer (7)

2009: Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Robinson Cano, Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlain, Melky Cabrera, Brett Gardner, Phil Coke, Brian Bruney, Alfredo Aceves, David Robertson, Francisco Cervelli, Freddy Guzman (15)

Despite the perception of the 2009 Yankees as a bunch of hired guns, there were double the amount of homegrown talent on that squad than on the more "pure" 1996 squad.

This year's squad will fall just short of equaling last year's feat: the losses of Cabrera, Coke, Bruney, and Guzman bring down the tally, but this Yankees' postseason roster will undoubtedly include Ramiro Pena, Juan Miranda, Jonathan Albaladejo, and either Colin Curtis or Kevin Russo.

Perhaps the nostalgia for the late 90s is generated because many of the mercenaries acquired were genuine acts of mercy. The additions of Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry, two fallen Mets stars, displayed the character of George Steinbrenner, and the decision to sit a struggling Tino Martinez in the World Series in favor of the ballooning Cecil Fielder paid dividends in the short term (Fielder batting .391 in the World Series) and in the distant future (Martinez blossomed into a clutch postseason performer). Last year's Yankees had no legitimate human struggles and gambles, but that is partially because the front office demanded that good character be a prerequisite for becoming a Yankee (new additions Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia, Nick Swisher, and even the previously distant AJ Burnett fit perfectly into the clubhouse).

Facts should not be a casualty of emotion. Without even discussing the more legionnaire acquisitions of later championship squads (Roger Clemens, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch), the facts lay out as follows: the 2009 Yankees were the purest "Yankee farm system" winner of the free agent era.

These aren't Hank and Hal's Hessians. These are true Yankees.

Achilles Last Stand

2010-07-20T22:39:00.003-04:00

How do we treat the elderly?

The recent debate over President Obama's health care law raised potential answers that bordered on the hyperbolic, with Sarah Palin's "death panels" becoming a national catchphrase and one candidate for Congress in Florida proving Palin's point by insisting that we let them die. There is a great fear that America, a perpetually youth-focused culture, is turning into Logan's Run.

Sports has always been a prism through which we see our society's values, and the "face" of a given sport has represented America, for good and for bad. Bill Russell's dominance of the NBA during the 1960s reflected an America that was ready for civil rights, Michael Jordan's omnipresence during the 1990s reflected an American capitalism that was making the globe smaller, more accessible, and unified, and both the crack cocaine problem and the AIDS epidemic were not fully grasped until the death of Len Bias and the diagnosis of Magic Johnson, respectively. This phenomenon is not limited to basketball: Babe Ruth represented the glut and excess of the 1920s better than any other figure, and it is almost poetic that the United States' reputation as an international bully during the first term of the Bush Administration coincided with the intergalactic feats of, and deserved scorn heaped upon, Barry Bonds.

How do we treat the elderly? It seems that the face of baseball today may be the answer to that question.

Derek Jeter is one of the most respected figures in all of sports: his five championship rings actually pale in comparison to the grace and class he has demonstrated in dealing with the notorious New York media. Yet despite captaining a team with the best record in baseball, Jeter is hitting almost fifty points below his career average, his defense has been subpar compared to last season, and at age 36, questions have been asked about how long he can perform effectively.

Jeter has over 2900 hits at age 36, which is actually farther along than Pete Rose, the all time hits leader, was at that age. Jeter has also played through injuries at various times in his career, and with the Yankees' only rival in secrecy being the North Koreans, it would not be surprising to hear, after the season is over, that Jeter was hurt the entire year, affecting his performance.

The Yankees have said as much in prior campaigns, but they won't say anything this year: this is the final year of Jeter's enormous contract, and with Alex Rodriguez making $27.5 million per year through 2017, the Yankees are under great pressure to sign Jeter to a deal he deserves while, at the same time, keeping enough money in the budget to improve the franchise in the short term and in the future.

For the first time, Jeter is unlucky to have the ageless Mariano Rivera on his side. Rivera is also in the last year of his contract, yet at age 40, he's posted a 1.02 ERA and a 0.65 WHIP so far this season. They play different positions, to be sure, but Rivera's continued excellence is a bad comparison for a seemingly declining Jeter.

Yankees fans have been through this before: the Mickey Mantle who played from 1965-68 was a shell of the once-in-a-lifetime figure who anchored seven World Series championship squads. Loyal fans perservered through a rough patch as Mantle's career numbers declined and the Yankees faded from relevance. As Jeter chases championships and the record books, a new generation of fans may go through the same ordeal.

Should one bad season be enough to fundamentally restructure a contract offer? Should past deeds, including playing through injuries (which may be the case this year), be the standard by which a person is rewarded? Would a massive contract for a declining Jeter be the baseball equivalent of Social Security or a pension, or would it be an investment in a still relevant and essential player who happened to have a bad year, whether due to lack of health or lack of focus (for the first time, Jeter is seriously considering marriage and children)?

How do we treat the elderly?

We'll take a glimpse into the prism this offseason.

Supreme Arrogance

2010-07-02T01:38:00.003-04:00

In a landmark decision announced Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment, which restricted federal authorities from interfering with gun ownership, also applied to the states, incorporating the 14th Amendment. The original lawsuit that made its way to the Supremes was based in Chicago, where a citizen of the Second City challenged Mayor Richard Daley's draconian gun ban.

The Supremes may have thought that they decided the case, but the Emperor does not got down without a fight.

Yesterday, Daley introduced a new set of restrictions on gun ownership in his city, but what he really did was spit in the faces of the five Supreme conservative justices. Among other restrictions, Daley's new law would:

• Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

• Ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Daley says that he welcomes legal challenges to his law, noting that, "Everybody has a right to sue."

There will be suits, and they won't be neat and tidy for Daley.

The Supreme Court has always maintained that Americans have the right to own guns on their property. Some cities, such as New York City, have imposed strict regulations on concealed carry permits, which is perfectly legal; there is not fundamental right, at least in the view of the Supremes, to carry a loaded weapon in a public place.

One's property, however, is a different story, and the Supreme Court's rulings over the years have been consistent, even if the margains of those rulings have been narrow. A person who owns property owns not only his house, but also his garage and his porch. Someone who stores his rifle in his garage would be committing a criminal act in the Daley Empire. Since it is common knowledge that garages operate under the same principle as homes, Daley is essentially daring the Supreme Court to smack him down.

The same is true of the gun shops. If something is not available, it is not legal. New York City has not banned nicotene from city premises, nor has it expelled salt; it merely taxes cigarettes and salt to such a level that citizens have trouble shelling out the cash to purchase items containing those elements. If Daley wishes to do away with guns in Chicago, his constitutional answer is not to ban gun shops; if he does so, he runs the risk of a smackdown from the district courts, if not the Supremes. If, however, he raises the city tax on guns to a ridiculous level (or, as Chris Rock suggested, skyrocket the price of bullets), he can effectively drain the gun market without running afoul of the Constitution.

Daley, however, is thin-skinned and arrogant, which seems to be the case with Chicago politicians.

Hopefully the Supreme Court puts him in his proper place.

$hits & Giggles, World Cup Edition

2010-06-28T08:40:00.011-04:00

This blog post is available in vuvuzela.

Two long, serious bookends concerning US soccer. No matter how disappointing the finish was, once cannot take away how impressive and vitally important the Americans were in South Africa. Winning their group yet teetering on the edge of chaos at all times, the American soccer team provided excitement - a quality in short supply in this World Cup, with traditional powers such as Brazil, Portgual, and the Netherlands preferring to guarantee a win in a boring manner than to potentially lose with style and skill. Hopefully this run captured the hearts and minds of Americans who may not have previously been soccer fans - but will be in the future.

Still, the American flaws were obvious and led to their downfall, yet there is something distinctly 21st American about them. The defense's propensity to come out sluggish and give up a goal within the first 10 minutes was maddeningly constant, yet once the American team got punched in the mouth, it woke up and began pressuring their opponents like no one else in the tourney. We are a complacent populace, but the aftermath of 9/11 proved that nothing brings out the best in this country quite like a difficult situation - going a man down. The Americans were also screwed out of two crucial goals by incompetent officials, which got our blood boiling back here in the states. Our sense of justice and fair play rallied us around our team with an intensity never seen before in American soccer, and the team's never say die attitude (particularly evidenced by the incredible stoppage time winner against Algeria) touches upon something deep in the American character.

It is ironic that the English, who long have looked down on the colonies' footballing ability, played an American game against Germany. First smacked in the mouth, then storming back, only to be robbed of an equalizer by referee malfeasance, playing ugly - all of the American elements were on display, except that nobody can do America quite like America. It was only right that the English folded in the second half in a manner resembling their control over Basra during the occupation of Iraq. "Two World Wars and one World Cup" - and forty years of German beatings since.

The rest of the world will miss America's presence in the World Cup - let us hope that America misses the World Cup's presence in the next three years and sets the stage for an unprecedented American interest in soccer in 2014.

On to the giggles:

-Despite their hard work in obtaining the ball, Clint Dempsey and Jozy Altidore performed like 40 year old virgins in front of the net. These two couldn't score in the little whorehouse of Texas.

America starting striker in the 2014 World Cup? You guessed it: Tiger Woods.

-On Dempsey's only goal, English goalkeeper Robert Green muffed it badly. Despite assurances that his goalkeeping was safe, the ball shot through his shaky foundation and spilled across the goal line, causing toxic effects to England's psyche for the unforseeable future.

It took President Obama over two weeks to realize that the US had scored.

-One thing is clear, though: Michael Bradley will be America's next best player, which is something will take getting used to. America has not had a good track record recently with the sons of authority figures.

-The feeling Ghana's 93rd minute goal gave Americans a sickening feeling. To many, it seemed that Ghana formed an alliance with its neighboring nation, Rhea.

-Despite Ghana's success, things did not go well for the host continent. Cameroon, South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria, and the Ivory Coast all failed to advance to the second round, and the Ugandan team was eaten by Idi Amin.

Africa hasn't been the same since 1936, when the Ethiopian military looked poised to expel Italy from the continent - until the ref called a penalty on Mussolini's dive in the 18 yard box.

-State reports from North Korea indicate that Kim Jong-Il scored all seven goals in the game against Portugal.

-The Q is shocked at France's meltdown during this June World Cup. Usually the refusal to work and the riots come in August.

The entire team's performance over the course of three les miserables games was a collective headbutt to the chest of the French populace.

-How far has South Africa come as a nation? The mainly-black vuvuzela-blowing crowds were rooting hard for a New Zealand team called the "All Whites."

-For a nation as obsessed with soccer as England, its national team is never very good at it.

It's been a steady string of disappointments for Her Majesty's subjects since 1966, and every recent cup has produced one Eyes Wide Shut-style mask to hide the teams' obvious flaws. Frank Lampard's disallowed goal against Germany will be the ledge fans cling to - "If only that had gone our way, we would've won!" - but in every game, save for 30 minutes against Slovenia, the team performed abouy as well as Gordon Brown.

-There were reports that despite losing the captain's armband to Steven Gerrard, English defender John Terry tried to assert his authority but ended up poisoning the locker room. Gerrard's first reaction to the attempted coup was to buy his girlfriend a one way ticket back to England.

-While it may have looked like it was Argentina that expelled the Mexican team from South Africa, it's clear that John McCain's threat to "build a danged fence" around the soccer stadiums was the decisive factor.

-German coach Joachim Low has performed an excellent balancing act between motivating his young team and shooting a spread for Tiger Beat magazine.

-Slovakia's third goal in its third match momentarily stopped the Earth's movement in Rome, Florence, and Seaside Heights.

In Seaside and Morris Park, the fan favorite ought to be Giuseppe Rossi, an American who chose to play for Italy over his own nation. How'd that work out for you, Gio?

-Despite winning their first three games, the Dutch seemed sleepy and in another world until Arjen Robben's entrance in the 70th minute of match 3. If only there were some substance readily available that would explain the Dutch's lethargy . . .

-Without ESPN, Scotland would have 50% unemployment. It's amazing that color commentary jobs keep going to the Scots, considering that there's better command of the English language on Univision.

Back to something a little more serious: the future of American soccer. Jurgen Klinsmann made the very astute point that soccer in the US is almost entirely a middle class game with no professional endgame for middle class kids. In so many cases, the parents' ultimate goal is to obtain college scholarships based on soccer; after acceptance, the child will play for the college team but get a degree and advance into that field, ending their sports career. Lower class parents are more likely to instill into their children professional sports as a career path, but the strong majority are geared towards basketball and football.

It is undeniably true that soccer provides more opportunities for professional advancement than football or basketball; there are professional soccer leagues in over 50 countries. Yet basketball remains the dream for the lower classes because it is the best sport to maximize potential earnings. With the smallest number of roster spots available (12 per team in the NBA), salaries for those roster spots are highest. One has a good chance of playing soccer professionally, but there is less money out there for all but the world's most skilled.

The problem with soccer, too, is that soccer is, at heart, a team sport. There are dazzling displays performed by individuals throughout the course of a game, but to win, one needs to be totally in sync with the other ten players on the pitch. America has always been more individualistic than its European or South American counterparts, and this is especially true in the lower classes, where the need to succeed is higher; if one is to make it in America, one must do so based on his own strength and ingenuity. Basketball, then, is so attractive to the lower classes because it is the ultimate individual "team sport", at least in the NBA. A championship-caliber NBA team needs only one outstanding player and two very good players to win, with the best example being Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls. Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant/Dennis Rodman were both very good, and the other nine guys performed well in their roles. It's been true of every champion since then: Kobe/Gasol/Odom, Garnett/Pierce/Allen, Duncan/Parker/Ginoblli, etc.

If soccer catches on with the lower classes, America may very well become a powerhouse, but it will resemble Argentina's World Cup victors in 1986 than any other champion. That team was Diego Maradona and 22 ciphers; Maradona's individual exploits pulled that nation to glory.

If soccer is seen as a profession worth working for with the middle classes, then more Americans will find themselves playing in Europe and South America, which will make them better by osmosis. It's no secret that Landon Donovan's improvement coincided with his loan to Everton; by playing in the English Premier League, and leaving the MLS behind, Donovan improved his game. More Americans need to follow in those footsteps.

Soccer needs both the middle and the lower classes to gravitate towards it. But only a fundamental paradigm shift will accomplish this.

Finally, I really liked German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer's performance in Invictus.

Graveyards and Generals

2010-06-23T21:33:00.007-04:00

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

That boss would tell us to divide the facts of the Stanley McChrystal fiasco into three categories: what was obvious, what we know now, and what will soon become apparent.

It was obvious that McChrystal had to go, as soon as the first sections of the Rolling Stone article leaked. While this was different worlds away from the Douglas MacArthur canning in 1951 - MacArthur actually disobeyed presidential orders and brought a raging Chinese side into the Koren War, while McChrystal and his aides merely spoke off the cuff - it is essential that civilian control over the military is not undermined, and it is also essential that major policy disagreements between military leaders remain out of the public sphere. The Rolling Stone article was not an isolated incident - McChrystal was all too public in his pressing for adequate troop levels last fall, and this magazine piece was the straw that broke the camel's back. President Obama made the right decision to summon McChrystal back to Washington - and McChrystal, realizing his mistake, made the right decision to offer his resignation.

It was obvious, too, that McChrystal's tenure in Afghanistan was not working out. All of the reasons for McChrystal's appointment deserved to be questioned. McChrystal was in charge of the special operations unit in Iraq, but with a stricter rules of engagement ordered by Obama but recommended by McChrystal and David Petraeus, special ops teams were either too hindered by the ROEs to do their job correctly or purposefully went against the ROEs to the detriment of the civilian population (it depends on which version you've read). McChrystal's other great strength was his relationship with Hamid Karzai's government, but it is questionable whether the US should associate with a man who has openly threatened to join the Taliban and whose brother controls a significant portion of the drug trade in the nation. In short, McChrystal had rendered himself a sort of liability, and one wonders if the general did the interview to punch his ticket out of Afghanistan without having the failing war hung around his neck.

We know now that McChrystal created a loose, freewheeling culture that openly disdained the civilian leadership, and it seems reasonable to assume that McChrystal's cowboys are not alone in that view. There is a natural tension between the military and its civilian leadership that is implied in the constitution, but with the shoddy treatment of veterans by civilian leadership, the growing influence of private mercenaries, and American political society turning into a "He said, she said" gossip-fused reality show, one can forgive military men and women looking with disgust at their leaders. The sin was making those views public.

We also know exactly who the hypocrites are on both sides of the political spectrum. Those who cheered on Eric Shinseki's public condemnation of Donald Rumsfeld's war plan in 2003 that now throw McChrystal under the bus deserve our scorn - and the same for the other side of the coin.

We also know now that the only way to get Barack Obama to act quickly and urgently is to personally insult him in ways that get under his thin skin. Obama only began taking the Gulf oil spill seriously when he was being criticized for his lackadasical attitude; by contrast, he was ready for this crisis on day one - the day that it was leaked that McChrystal viewed the president in their first meeting as "uncomfortable and intimidated". Health care reform gained momentum only when Democrats called Obama disengaged and weak; immigration reform has only gained steam with Arizona's law; and while Obama has continued or accelerated the majority of Bush war policies in Pakistan, east Africa, and South America, he has done so with a dispassionate demeanor that directly contradicts his emotional state during his "war" with Fox News. Let me be clear: the way to get Obama to act is to verbally punch him in the mouth.

We know now that Obama does not bring any new ideas to the table. His counterterror policies are a mixture of Bush's in practice and Clinton's in tone; his health care law was taken from Republican counter-proposals to Clinton in 1993; his answer to immigration is the same as Bush and John McCain's solution in 2006; and now, his reliance on David Petraeus makes it appear as if America's celebrated military only has only produced one figure worth anything. Some of those who voted against Obama warned not only of his lack on executive experience but of his lack of new ideas; Obama was merely a shiny repackaging of the same failed theories of the past. To quote the man himself: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but in the end, it's still a pig."

It will soon be apparent that the people so eager to appoint David Petraeus as a miracle worker did not bother to read the general's finest work. In his counterinsurgency handbook, Petraeus stresses the need for a flawless relationship between military and civilian leadership, and his partnership with ambassador Ryan Crocker in Iraq was crucial in securing victory for the occupying forces beginning in 2007. McChrystal's major failing was his adversarial relationship with Afghan ambassador Karl Eikenberry, but he also swallowed sour grapes with civilian leaders such as Richard Holbrooke and Jim Jones (not to mention Vice President Joe Biden). McChrystal was one of Petraeus' right-hand men, so there is not guarantee that Petraeus will get along with Eikenberry and Holbrooke, despite Petraeus' gift for politics. Ironically, the Karzai government, if they deserved a say in the matter, might suggest this counteroffer: place Petraeus in charge of the military and have him coordinate with a new civilian leader . . . a soon to be retired McChrystal.

Sadly, it will also soon be apparent that Petraeus is not a miracle worker, and that Afghanistan is lost. Petraeus showed the way to success in Iraq with his work in Tal Afar in late 2004 and 2005, but without al-Qaeda's carnage turning the Sunnis to our side in late 2006, and without Iraq's legacy as a modern nation prior to the horrendous wars of the Saddam years, Iraq may not have been turned around. There is no foreign enemy in Afghanistan - the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and the Hekmatyar syndicate are composed of the myriad of peoples who have lived in Afghanistan and Pakistan for years, two nations which are barely past the feudal stage of development. The Afghan Army, too, cannot be built in a way to ensure stability in the nation, and even if it could, Karzai is not strong enough to lead them. Petraeus is a great American, but he is not Clark Kent, and our Afghan adventure is due to fail.

Until now, it was said that McChrystal was indispensible to the success of our mission; the same will be said of Petraeus.

Another great general deserves the last quote. Charles de Gaulle was spot on when he said:

"Graveyards are full of indispensible men."

World Cup Group Stage

2010-06-11T11:20:00.002-04:00

Here's who will advance:

A - South Africa, Mexico

B - Argentina, Greece

C - USA, England

D - Germany, Australia

E - Netherlands, Cameroon

F - Italy, Paraguay

G - Brazil, Ivory Coast

H - Spain, Chile

Additional picks after the group stage . . .

In Through the Out Door

2010-06-08T14:38:00.002-04:00

"Never let a crisis go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel

As the blown-up BP oil rig continues shooting millions of gallons into the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama realizes that now, more than ever, Americans are ready to embrace energy alternatives to fossil fuels. Obama has promised over $54 billion to researching solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear power, and is ready to push for Congressional approval for the notorious "cap and trade" policy that he championed during the 2008 campaign.

Never mind the fact that the EPA has begun regulating carbon emissions; never mind the fact that cap and trade is designed to artificially raise prices to influence consumer behavior. What is most appalling about the current cap and trade push is how it's being done.

According to Newsweek:

The White House's new legislative strategy is to apparently attach a landmark change in energy policy—namely, a price on carbon—to the bill bringing aid to the region.

Say what you will about the health care battle, but at least a major restructuring of the US economy was debated as its own bill. Cap and trade, which Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have been working on for months, will now merely be an amendment to another bill. If the amendment manages to make it into the bill, Republicans will now be forced to vote for cap and trade - or vote against the citizens of the Gulf region.

Fundamental societal change, which is what cap and trade attempts to achieve, should never be a legislative sidecar. Issues such as health care reform, civil rights, or the end of slavery were not placed in the same bills as a proclamation honoring veterans or dedicating a holiday to a famous figure. Yet in the case of cap and trade, the Obama Administration is gambling in a game of high stakes. If cap and trade becomes the focus of the bill, and the wrath of voters forces elected officials to stand against it, the necessary funding to clean up the oil spill, a decidedly non-partisan issue, will be lost to partisan "politics as usual."

Of course, there is a chance that we may not face such a doomsday scenario. As shown during the health care debate, an amendment requires 60 votes, and unless one of the Maine sisters decides to return history's voicemail, the Democrats do not have the necessary votes. Keep in mind that, in the House, only eight Republicans voted for cap and trade, and all eight have been hounded viciously since that vote; Senate moderates such as Lindsey Graham and Scott Brown will not be as eager as those eight. Also, keep in mind that cap and trade is a regional issue, not a partisan one; Mark Kirk, one of the Republican Eight, is currently struggling in his campaign for Barack Obama's old Senate seat primarily because voters in southern Illinois are furious over Kirk's "Aye."

Yet politics is a cynical business, and I remain cynical that the amendment will be defeated. Once in the bill, it comes down to what is more important: beginning the destruction of American comfort levels, or continuing the destruction of America's coastline.

Obama and his chief of staff would not have it any other way.

The Original Obama

2010-05-17T13:23:00.009-04:00

It's easy for Americans to think that Barack Obama is a once in a lifetime phenomenon, with his inspirational life story, his incredible personal charisma, and his youthful socialist leanings giving way to more moderate campaigning. Obama famously pledged during the Democratic primaries to negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad face-to-face within the first year of his presidency, which brought him heapings of scorn from both conservatives and his fellow primary challengers. Obama can appear larger than life, and his goals appear even larger than that.

Obama is merely the American version of a titanic international figure that few Americans know about: Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva - "Lula" for short.

When thinking of Brazil, Americans usually conjure up images of Carnival, soccer, and supermodels, but since Lula's rise to power, Brazil has become a major player in world politics. Lula, a soft socialist, has managed to walk a tightrope his entire political career, most notably in balancing the need for social reform with the temptation to scare away private enterprise. A great example of Lula's balance: he was the only head of state in this hemisphere to maintain friendly relationships with both George W. Bush and Hugo Chavez.

It should come as no surprise, then, that is was Lula who negotiated Iran's latest nuclear deal: a uranium swap with Turkey that would set
Iran on its way towards peaceful nuclear energy without providing any assistance that might lead them on their path towards nuclear weapons. Western powers have dismissed the deal, but that's par for the course. What is not par for the course are worries that Brazil is looking to increase energy ties with Iran; given that Brazil has become a hydro-powerhouse, the last thing that nation would need (literally and figuratively) is to become addicted to Middle Eastern oil.

The most notable aspect of the deal is not the specifics of Iran's Lula's incredible faith in himself. Lula was the original politician to say, "Yes we can" - mainly because he had been told, "No you can't" for his entire life. Yet this sentence reminded me more than a little of the current White House resident:

Lula is essentially going to offer the same argument to the Iranians that other allies have over the past few months, but the difference is that Lula believes strongly in his power of persuasion.

George W. Bush created a mini-controversy in 2008 for comparing Obama to an appeasement-minded senator as World War II began who lamented, "If only I could have talked to Hitler!" Yet Obama, like Lula, believes strongly in his personal touch in overcoming seemingly impossible political challenges.

There are other striking similarities between Obama and his Brazilian counterpart:

"We all know it's his dream to be secretary-general of the United Nations" a Brazilian professor noted recently.

This could easily be said of America's first "Pacific president", the man who proclaimed his status in Berlin as "a citizen of the world."

Some Brazilians have embraced Lula's engagement of Iran as realpolitik, saying that the Brazilian leader has to engage in that in order to best serve the nation's interests, even at the expense of higher-minded concerns. This is something Obama has embraced after the idealism (in theory, if not in practice) of the Bush Administration.

Yet for all of his realpolitik in working with nations, Obama and Lula have embraced idealism - in themselves.

Hailing the Chief

2010-05-14T13:56:00.009-04:00

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama's surrogates proclaimed him the hippest candidate in history. Candidate Obama spoke about the ten songs he must have on his iPod, and his staff played Jay-Z's "99 Problems" at the end of a campaign rally during his fierce primary battle with Hillary Clinton. Despite President Obama's recent "Get off my lawn" speech, the big question music moguls must wrestle with is this: How will Obama influence the industry?

It's not a silly question. An in-depth look at music trends reveals that the president of the moment has a great deal of influence on what becomes "the next big thing" from a marketing perspective. Of course, other trends, more closely associated with music, have a great impact, but the personality traits a president's team chooses to present, or a reaction to that president's policies, inevitably lead to marketing gold.

Perhaps the strongest correlation between presidential image and recording success involves Obama's predecessor. George W. Bush carefully tailored a rural persona designed to appeal to middle and working class Americans, despite his pampered upbringing. Wearing denim and flannel shirts, clearing brush, and tightly associating himself with Texas, Bush brought a "country outlaw" swagger to the White House, which continued throughout his term in Washington. Bush's words ("smoke 'em out," "dead or alive," "bring 'em on") and actions (doubling down on an Iraq surge that no one else was prepared to support) would not have felt too out of touch with the legends that have surrounded Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, and Waylon Jennings, even if the politics differed. It should come as no surprise, then, that country music became "the next big thing."

Seeds were planted in the 1990s, when Garth Brooks became America's best selling artist, but it was during Bush's years that figures such as Toby Keith, Kenny Chesney, and Faith Hill reached superstar status. Carrie Underwood walked off of American Idol poised for success, but she deliberately chose to embrace her country roots and made millions. Even non-country acts, such as Bon Jovi, raced to cash in on the phenomenon. Country music and George W. Bush were a marriage made in honky tonk heaven, even as city dwellers recoiled at their successes.

Ronald Reagan, too, personified a leading trend in music during his presidency: the heartland rocker. Tom Petty and John Mellencamp both began their careers in the late 1970s, but their sound took hold with the public in the 1980s, when their minimalist rock and roll fit hand in glove with Reagan's carefully crafted "Morning in America" persona. Even rockers from the coasts got in on the act: John Fogerty enjoyed a career renaissance by penning tunes such as "Centerfield" that sounded more John Cougar than Credence Clearwater, and New Jersey's working class cynic, Bruce Springsteen, threw away the grandiose sounds of his 1970s work to pen the more rural sounding Nebraska and Born in the USA - the latter sold over 30 million copies.

Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower had the opposite effect on music: their advanced age led music moguls to embrace youth. Roosevelt was gearing up for a third term in 1939 and 1940, and while newspapers hid his polio affliction effectively, America's youth wanted to swing to the big bands and swoon to the dulcet tones of teen idols. Tommy Dorsey's band provided the newest teen on the block, and America's youth fell head over heels for him. When one things of teen sensations, one thinks of flashes in the pan, so perhaps one can forgive older critics in the early 1940s for thinking that Frank Sinatra would fade into oblivion once his audience aged. The same was true of Eisenhower's presidency: youths flocked to a new developments, and older critics sneered. Their objects of scorn: the emerging flash in the pan genre known as "rock and roll" and its biggest sensation, a white kid out of Memphis, singing black tunes, named Elvis Presley. Without senior citizens sitting in their rocking chairs on Pennsylvania Avenue, perhaps Sinatra and Elvis do not receive as much backing from the record companies as they first did.

Usually, though, music trends come in reaction to a president's policies. Lyndon Johnson's stubborn insistence on fighting in Vietnam led to the Summer of Love and the rise of hippies, and his incidental destruction of inner cities led to the rise of blaxploitation and urban protest movement; it's no surprise that Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, and the Temptations turned their focus to social commentary at the end of the 1960s. Likewise, Richard Nixon's cold fish demeanor and blatant corruption, combined with policies that saw a rapid decline of American position in the world, led America to tune out Washington and focus on having a good time. Viewing both the Nixon-Ford terms and Jimmy Carter's haplessness with indifference, America decided that all it wanted to do was dance, and disco became the main music of the 1970s.

The end of the Reagan era, and George Bush the first's continuation of ignoring inner city communities, led to the violent gangster rap music best illustrated by NWA and Ice-T's Body Count, and a white youth culture that was angry at being ignored during the Reagan-Bush era saw the rise of alternative rock, which traded complexity for distortion and Robert Plant wannabes for tortured screams. Bill Clinton presided over a resurgence of the American economy; municipal efforts, buoyed by bigger budgets, to crack down on inner city crime led to rap of the late 1990s, which saw many inner city dreamers look to make their money in the rap game and not in the crack game. With few economic or foreign policy concerns, the media began to focus on Clinton's personal scandals; alt-rock became more vulgar in an attempt to shock a collective conscience that was a lot easier to disturb pre-Clinton.

It must be noted that these music phenomena are restricted to American artists and American trends, but a British equivalent could easily be explained. Harold Wilson's desperation to appeal to the youth led to bands such as the Rolling Stones and The Who becoming household names, even as his tax rates chased them abroad; the disaster of Wilson and Ted Heath led to the rise of punk; and the elderly nature of late term Maggie Thatcher and John Major led marketers to focus on a neglected youth, which led to the emergence of Britpop (Oasis, Blur, even the Spice Girls).

I'll end, though, on the one time in which the reverse occurred: where record executives' marketing helped directly influence presidential policy. Martin Luther King certainly was the leader of the civil rights movement in America, but almost as important in proving the equality of blacks and whites was the rise of Motown Records. Smokey Robinson & the Miracles, the Supremes, the Four Tops, the Temptations - all of these groups, by recording music that appealed to large white audience, made white America more comfortable with blacks. John Kennedy waited over two years before proposing civil rights legislation; during those two years, Motown had produced a great number of hit records. Without Motown, one wonders if there would have been a more sizable backlash to the civil rights proposal.

So what will be "the next big thing"? And what will matter more: Obama's persona or Obama's policies?

$hits & Giggles May 2010

2010-05-11T12:57:00.006-04:00

-The new Giants Stadium opened last weekend with a Mexico vs. Ecuador soccer match. Apparently, the tailgating atmosphere was incredible, though something tells me that the tailgating would be even wilder if the game was played where the Giants' biggest victory occurred.

-Rambo: homo. Matrix: girly man. McClane: pussy. There's only one true macho action hero named John, and he's gonna build the goddamn fence himself.

McCain's been flipping on his old positions so fast that Six Flags is considering making an attraction out of him.

-Note to military guys named John who shamelessly flip-flop: that's the reason you'll never be President.

-President Obama's use of the word "teabaggers" in reference to the conservative deficit protestors is being blown out of proportion. There was probably far more discussion of teabagging in the Elysee Palace than in the White House.

-Obama's choice of Elena Kagan as a potential Supreme Court justice has progressives banging their heads against the walls. They shouldn't bang them against closet doors though; you never know who's inside.

Hopefully, though, sexual orientation will not be an issue in this confirmation hearing - well, except for the defense of heterosexuality by famous womanizers like Lindsey Graham.

-The Twilightifcation of America is complete with Maxim naming Katy Perry the hottest woman in the world. With her pale skin, red lips, and heaving bosoms, Perry would be perfectly cast as one of Dracula's brides. Of course, Dracula looks positively human compared to her current undead husband.

-I was going to ask Ludacris a question about his career trajectory, but he beat me to the punch.

-True story: on Mother's Day, Hot 97 played a moving maternal tribute by a rapper, not unlike 2Pac's "Dear Mama" - and immediately switched into "Neighbors Know My Name." Hot 97 - ruining sex two songs at a time.

Of course, Hot 97 is merely filling the void left by the Catholic Church, whose ministers seem to get laid more than R. Kelly.

-Sign of getting laid too much: pulling out of a golf tournament due to a "bulging dick." Perhaps the Golf Channel reporter and Shep Smith should hook Tiger up with Jennifer Lopez.

-Evangeline Lilly's appearance on The Late Show may have saved Dave Letterman's marriage. After all: is it really cheating if it's just a phone call?

-If your wife finds out about your AshleyMadison.com account, your next subscription should be with DolleyMadison.com. You're gonna need somebody to get your precious things when your wife burns down the house.

-Bayern Munich's 3-0 victory over Olympique Lyonnais last month saw over 4000 Bavarians make the trip to the Stade Gerland. No word on whether they crossed through Belgium to get there.

There really is nothing like a mass of Germans crashing across the border to put the French in their place.

-The Atlanta Braves are set to retire Tom Glavine's jersey - just for his years pitching for the Mets.

-Lena Horne passed away yesterday, and while many are posting her most famous song, "Stormy Weather", perhaps her most famous TV appearance was this 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley. This is TV fluff at its finest.

Hung Parliament

2010-05-07T23:40:00.003-04:00

European-style elections can be messy, as one of America's closest allies is finding out. Frustrated with current economic conditions and the specter of the Iraq War, this electorate refused to give any party enough votes to govern as a majority. Instead, the popular choice is watching helplessly as the current prime minister looks to create a governing coalition with former enemies.

England?

Try Iraq.

Despite Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya party winning the most seats in Parliament, Nouri al-Maliki looks poised to retain his seat at the head of government by forming an alliance with two of the most unlikely of allies - Moqtada al-Sadr and Ammar al-Hakim. Maliki famously used the power of the Iraqi Army to drive Sadr's followers out of Basra, and Hakim maintains great influence among the Shia in the south of the country. Yet both have led their parties under the banner of the Iraqi National Alliance, an alliance that Maliki is open to dealing with in return for staying in power.

Members of the Sunni Abnar Awakening are concerned that if Maliki's party joins a coalition with al-Sadr's and al-Hakim's, Sunnis will be shut out of Iraqi national politics. Many Sunnis voted for Allawi despite Allawi's Shiite faith; with Allawi winning the popular vote, those Sunnis may feel that the fix is in if Allawi does not return to the PM post.

There are many similarities between Iraqi's most recent election and Great Britain's, but one thing is certain in the latter territory: if Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg disagree on an issue, they won't go running to Queen Elizabeth to break the stalemate.

Under a proposed agreement between Maliki's party and the Iraqi National Alliance, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other senior clerics could be the decisive figures in coalition disputes. Wary of the fate of their neighbor to the east, Iraqi politicians in the know have stressed that this agreement would only concern the current alliance, and would not place religious figures into political matters on a permanent basis.

Despite that, it should come as no surprise that al-Sadr's followers are pushing hard for these religious conditions; they are hoping to limit the power of the prime minister's office, and are perhaps still stewing over their defeat in Basra.

The Anglo-centric media will place great focus on England's post-election turmoil, but make no mistake about it: Iraq's election remains the most important foreign election of 2010 for the United States.

Perhaps the most chilling thought: With President Obama occupied with other issues, especially nuclear proliferation and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it will fall to Vice President Biden to guide the Iraqis to a successful post-election situation in which the Sunnis and Kurds are not alienated.

And no one is more suited to delicate diplomacy than Joe Biden.

Rick Sanchez is Trapped...

2010-05-07T19:10:00.002-04:00

...in a glass case of emotion.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Moment of Zen - Rick Sanchez Ad-Libs a Tease

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

Death Panels

2010-04-28T07:17:00.002-04:00

Like zombies and vampires, you thought you killed it off, but it's back and stronger than ever.

Sarah Palin received a ton of criticism for her metaphor about unaccountable experts making the tough decisions about how much health care a person could receive when the government is in control. "Death panels" conjured images of Brave New World and Logan's Run, and the ensuing media firestorm made it appear as if members of Congress removed the provision about an independent ration board from the bill.

Office of Management & Budget Director Peter Orszag recently revealed that this wasn't true. In fact, that panel of experts, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, would change health care forever:

The change in focus from quantity to quality is shorthand for saying that health care providers and insurers will no longer just give out as much care and treatment as a patient asks for - or a doctor requests. This inevitably leads to rationing of care.

Ed Morrissey has more on why this will be a permanent fixture of our society, which Orszag starts to explain in the video.

The President may think that Sarah Palin is no expert on nuclear issues, but on health care, she hit the nail on the head.

The Universal Declaration of Economic Protectionism

2010-04-19T23:57:00.003-04:00

I'm a human being, and I have rights as a human, such as - a vacation in a foreign country?

In 1948, the civilized nations of the world drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which include freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, education, and movement, among other things. The European Union is now suggesting adding a right - the right to travel.

On the surface, EU Enterprise & Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani's radical idea is merely an expansion of an existing framework. Article 24 of the UDHR says this:

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Tajani hopes to ensure that everyone receives appropriate rest and leisure by spending hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing those most in need of financial assistance, which coincidentally includes those who have the time to travel:

Tajani’s programme will be piloted until 2013 and then put into full operation. It will be open to pensioners and anyone over 65, young people between 18 and 25, families facing “difficult social, financial or personal” circumstances and disabled people. The disabled and the elderly can be accompanied by one person.

What a noble idea: making travel a human right and ensuring that everyone can travel, regardless of situation. New York City is lovely at any time of year; is New York soon to be overrun with European tourists?

Not so fast.

The closer one looks at the EU's plan, the more one sees borders being built between continents:

The scheme is intended to promote a sense of pride in European culture, bridge the north-south divide in the continent and prop up resorts in their off-season. [...] In the initial phase, northern Europeans will be encouraged to visit southern Europe and vice versa. Details of how participants are chosen have not yet been finalised, but it is expected the EU will subsidise about 30% of the cost.

As Gerald Ford warned us, any government that has the power to give you whatever you want has the power to take away everything from you. Say you're coming from Greece or Italy to visit England. What would you like to do while in England? Any ideas of your own?

Best put those on layaway.

Officials have envisaged sending south Europeans to Manchester and Liverpool on a tour of “archeological and industrial sites” such as closed factories and power plants.

Is that all Manchester and Liverpool have to offer, or is there perhaps something else that those from the southern half of the continent might be interested in?

This would be like sending Red Sox or Yankee fans to Baltimore on the government's dime and forcing them to patrol the scenes from The Wire.

Such a program would never go over in America, and not just because of our anti-government history. America's become so polarized that it's hard to imagine a rural Texan wanting to visit San Francisco, even with a scholarship from DC.

Perhaps you think we could partner with neighboring countries; the only problem is that we have a system already. Coming north is illegal immigration - going south is Spring Break.

Of course, while the EU's program would ensure that no one comes to America in their spare time, there is one American quality to the whole endeavor: profit motive.

The idea is based on a project in Spain in which holidays in the winter off-season are subsidised by the government for European residents aged 55 and over. Spain calculated that for every €1 it spent in subsidies, €1.6 was gained for its resorts.

Ed Morrissey has more thoughts that effectively sum up this ridiculous exercise.

Breaking News

2010-04-16T00:43:00.003-04:00

Well, I was going to tell you, and you could view it for free, but I'd rather save it for my book coming out later this year, which you can purchase for a cool $24.95.

When Glenn Greenwald agrees with Fox News, one wonders if the Earth will be hit by an meteor or if the Cubs will win the World Series. Yet a serious conflict of interest is posing a problem for the public's right to know: journalists gaining exclusive access to high government officials to write juicy tell-all tomes about a historic presidency.

Barack Obama's is an unprecedented presidency, one matched in historic terms perhaps only by the media's syncophatic embrace of him as a candidate in 2008. Few expected this embrace to continue through his first year and into his second, but that is because they expected that the primary causes of their slavish devotion to Obama would run their course: first, since they made a president, they would begin to break him, chipping away like a lumberjack at a majestic redwood, and second, because there were plenty of new scandalous stories to run at Obama's expense (something that could not be said of a Hillary Clinton presidency, which would've touched upon the same themes and scandals as her husband's, which is bad for media business).

We have underestimated the greed of certain media figures, and underestimated their willingness to throw their profession under the bus to satisfy that greed. Certain White House correspondents would fit in nicely on Wall Street.

At least ten journalists are receving special access to White House advisors to help flesh out future publications, inspired no doubt by Bob Woodward's 21st century career (official stenographer of certain Bush Administration figures) and the massive success of Game Change, the Mark Halperin and John Heilemann-authored Washington version of the National Enquirer.

According to Fox:

At least one of the authors on the current list, speaking on background in order to protect his continuing access to officials inside the Obama White House, [said] he occasionally withholds information from his deadline reporting, to use instead in his book.

Let that sink in for a second. A reporter, whose job it is to report breaking news from the White House, refuses to report breaking news from the White House in order to cash in on a big advance from a publisher.

What happened to the public's right to know? It got mangled, caught up in the printing presses of Penguin and Harper Collins.

Yet it's not only the pieces of information that are missing that hurt the public. Rather, it's the news that does make the deadline.

If a reporter had access to Rahm Emanuel, would that reporter ever bother to pen articles that might put him in an embarrassing light, for fear of being shut out? If David Axelrod was providing the inside story on an Obama policy decision to a reporter, would that reporter let an inside story on an unethical Axelrod move become an outside story? If Robert Gibbs knows what's going on in the Oval Office, would he still be picked last in dodgeball?

Consider what is revealed in these books, if you will: is the reader treated to a new understanding of a public policy? No - the reader is instead subjected to the third-grade game of "Telephone:" "At this meeting, I heard that this guy told that guy 'blah blah blah'".

And for a profession that stresses impartiality, these books are formed by just the opposite. Stories are always told by those who wish to make themselves look better than the facts might present. As for third accounts, especially of the president, things are simple: either everything will be in a positive light, as the source wishes to make sure that he doesn't burn any bridges - or the bridge was set ablaze a long time ago, in which case, all stories should be taken with some tequila and salt.

The last decade of journalism brought us the complete blackout of contrary facts opinions about 9/11, a bloodthirsty blackout of antiwar views prior to the launch of the invasion of Iraq, the forgery of National Guard documents by one of the three major network anchors, the continued employment of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Sean Hannity, the unmitigated assault against credible opponents of Barack Obama in 2008, and Katie Couric almost singlehandedly destroying the profession in one week of interviews with the vice presidential candidates.

This is worse, perhaps, that all of those, proving that this decade may not see a striking back against media malpractice, but a continuation of the downward spiral.

Martin Luther King Memorial

2010-04-14T05:02:00.003-04:00

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln - each man's life and work is a cornerstone of our nation, and each have monuments erected in their honor in Washington D.C.

Martin Luther King belongs in their company - and a monument is being constructed as we speak.

With ground breaking in November 2006, the King monument is close to being fully realized, with a tentative opening scheduled for the fall of 2011. When authorizing the project, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that $120 million would be needed to complete it, all through private fundraising. Thanks to the generous donations of both corporations and individuals, the project has raised $106 million - only $14 million short of their goal.

18 months from now, if you visit Washington, this is what will be standing across the pond from the Lincoln Memorial:

The organizers of the project wish for any donations, no matter how little, but at the very least, check out what's going on, either at the official site or this micro-site. Additional information is available on Facebook (Facebook.com/MLKNationalMemorial) and Twitter (@mlkmemorial).

King urged all of us to build upon his dream. Building this monument is a way to ensure that future generations will continue building that dream.

Trouble Brewing

2010-04-12T04:41:00.003-04:00

As American politicians attempt to turn America into a bigger version Western Europe, a funny thing is happening across the pond: Western European corporations are trying emulate America, particularly America's relatively weak labor unions.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the halls of the Carlsberg brewing facilities in Denmark. Perhaps admiring the work of Rudy Giuliani in New York City, the executives of Carlsberg feel that they can just remove benefits as they wish. The benefit that they're targeting is one dear to the hearts of the workers:

Drinking on the job.

The unions have struck back, organizing strikes across the country. And while Carlsberg still allows its workers to have three pint-sized cups of beer during lunch, the workers remain unsatisfied, protesting until things go back to how they used to be.

Perhaps they're protesting because of their bosses' primary justification for the move. Rather than stressing their concern for worker safety, either in the factory or on the drive home, the Carlsberg executives fret mostly about decreased productivity.

What an utterly American thing to worry about.

Of course, this is Europe, so the perks border on the absurd. Among the Carlsberg workers allowed to drink three pints a day include the truck drivers, though the company has finally invested in a breathalyzer system that would keep the ignition from turning on if the driver's put too many back.

This entire exercise may seem strange to us, and not only because our unions have traditionally weaker than those in Europe. In America, we used to be able to drink on the job, but these perks disappeared during the Great Depression.

While it makes sense for those who sweat and toil brewing beer to enjoy the fruits of their labor, without the three pint maximum, the drive home for the workers could resemble this:

Planned Infectionhood

2010-04-12T03:52:00.004-04:00

It's time for Planned Parenthood to be removed from Lady Liberty's breasts.

In the last few years, the United States has donated over a billion dollars to Planned Parenthood, and each Democratic president since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan has immediately signed an executive order overturning Reagan's Mexico City policy, which denied taxpayer funding to pay for overseas abortions. Only the Hyde Amendment prevents taxpayer funds from paying for abortions in the United States, and the new health care bill mandates that if the Hyde Amendment is overturned, insurance plans subsidized by tax dollars must include abortions (President Obama's executive order notwithstanding, because the EO would undoubtedly be overturned in the judicial system).

Planned Parenthood has topped itself with its latest release, a guide for young people that asserts that sexual confidentiality is a human right, even in the case of those who infected by AIDS. According to Planned Parenthood, no one should be forced to reveal their HIV-positive status, even to a potential sexual partner. Noting that "some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partners about their status before having sex," the organization states that these laws violate the rights of the infected. A Planned Parenthood spokesman says that these laws place "an undue burden of responsibility for all safe sex behavior on people living with HIV."

This is madness.

Not speaking for other countries: the United States maintains a tradition of rights, derived from the Declaration of Independence's focus on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thomas Jefferson put these terms in a specific order of importance: without life, there is no liberty, and without liberty, there is no pursuit of happiness. One can question where to draw the line on threats to life that would qualify as an excuse to trample on liberty (does the specter of Islamic terrorism justify the PATRIOT ACT and the warantless wiretapping of American communications?), but one thing is clear:

Having unprotected sex with a person who is HIV-positive is a certain death sentence.

Therefore, the burden of safe sex does fall primarily on the HIV-positive person, and it is not an unfair balance. Planned Parenthood may maintain that revealing one's AIDS affliction could lead to "discrimination within the community," that dark secrets may be revealed, and that a long term relationship partner could "react violently or end the relationship," but outside of an unfortunate blood transfusion, the AIDS patient was engaging in activities that brought the disease upon his or herself. That person could have made different choices, but instead acted self-destructively.

There is no human right that allows for acting destructively to someone else; in fact, individual rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others.

The cynic in me would note that Planned Parenthood offers HIV testing throughout the world where costs vary by community - some communities see Planned Parenthood offering free tests, while others see the organization offered services at a "low cost." The true cynic would note that by encouraging those with AIDS not to reveal their status to their sexual partners, more people would come to Planned Parenthood seeking HIV tests, all for a "low cost."

But I am not a cynic.

Nor do I discourage AIDS patients from engaging in active sexual lives - provided they are upfront and honest with their partners and act responsibility.

I am merely a citizen fed up with my tax dollars feeding and fattening up an organization that encourages such reckless behavior that mortality rates may rise.

Let's stop funding Planned Parenthood.

Socialized Soccer

2010-04-02T20:17:00.003-04:00

Politics and sports are like domestic beers and fruit - they don't go together. Nowhere was this more evident than when certain Congressmen floated the idea of a congressional restructuring of the end of the college football season. Americans hate the BCS system - but they hate government intervention into one of the nation's most cherished pasttimes even more.

Great Britain has always maintained strict differences from its former colonial rebels, yet certain members of Parliament appear to have been listening to the Congress-BCS turmoil. They're considering making major changes to the English Premier League - and the fault lies with Americans.

One American family, to be precise: Malcolm Glazer's financial empire expanded with his purchase of Manchester United this decade, but his craven methods of keeping up with his luxurious lifestyle have hit United's supporters hard. Glzer took money out of the United budget for personal reasons and has run up the organization's debt. In a league where every dollar matters (witness crosstown rival Manchester City's recent Yankees-like spending spree), Glazer has weakened his team's standing as well as his own prestige. Fans have protested against the Glazer regime by refusing to purchase official red and white United merchandise and coming to matches wearing green and gold scarves - United's original colors during the late 19th century.

Gordon Brown's government has proposed codifying fan ownership as a requirement for professional football clubs - but this may cause more harm than anticipated. Fans would be made to own up to 25% of their clubs, leaving the real control of the club in the hands of the private businessmen who have ruined their teams' finances in the first place. (By contrast, the German Bundesliga maintains that fans must own a majority share of their clubs).

The ideal ownership for British clubs, ironically, is American: the Green Bay Packers are the only professional sports franchise in America owned entirely by their fans. The Packers were grandfathered in as an exception to a 1980s rule that limited ownership of a franchise to less than 32 individuals, so we will never see anything like the Packers again on our shores. That's a shame, too, because the Green Bay community has resisted the temptations that rich individuals or small consortiums fall prey to, such as overspending on big names with diminishing returns or tearing down their cathedral in favor of a postmodern megalopolis where parking and concessions take a huge chunk out of fans' personal incomes.

The Packers have shown that fan ownership works, but the question remains: Can this formula work in a sport so commercialized that jersey space is sold to the highest bidder? Last year's Champions League final between Barcelona and Glazer's United left Americans with barely a passing interest in the game no doubts as to where their support should go. On one side was a team representing the United Nations Children's Fund; opposing them was a team sponsored by the corporate behemoth who wrecked the US economy and used taxpayer money to hand out lavish bonuses to undeserving executives. Satan himself could not have supported United in that match.

English football is big business, and Brown's law will keep the big business a big part of the game. Fans will basically become stockholders in a giant corporation, unable to effect much positive change; if they do, their interests will likely go against those of the principal owners, leading to a California-type situation, where state legislators struggle against the wishes of the people expressed through legally binding ballot initiatives. If the Labour Party wished to effect true reform, they've failed miserably with these proposals.

Yet perhaps this who charade is about something deeper: the loss of British identity. With the Muslim population skyrocketing, sharia law becoming equivalent to British law in Muslim areas, Labour's political correctness at an all time low, and the welfare state and National Helath Service collapsing, the people of that great island need something to fall back on and boost their national pride. Perhaps there is no better symbol for England's identity confusion than the Arsenal-Barcelona Champions League quarterfinal this year, in which the London side started not one English player.

The Premier League has always been a mirror of the nation, and right now, that mirror shows something far different than expected. Glazer's follies threaten to crack the mirror altogether.

Health Care is Law

2010-03-23T01:14:00.002-04:00

In the wake of the House passing the Senate's health care bill, it is worth considering the folllowing:

1) Without a public option, is this bill constitutional? Never before in American history has the federal government passed legislation that required all Americans, as the basis of citizenship, to purchase a product born entirely of the private sector. The Selective Service, Medicare & Medicaid, and car insurance have all passed the Interstate Commerce Clause because those laws either mandated the entire public to purchase government products ot were limited to certain conditions (IE, if you don't have a driver's license, you don't pay car insurance). Even the celebrated example of equality passes the Court test: if you own or work in a restuarant or bar, you are required to serve any person of any race of creed, but you have a choice: you don't have to work there. This is the first legislation that requires every American to act on behalf of private sector interests - fascism in its most literal sense.

Depending on what side of the bed Anthony Kennedy wakes up on, this bill may be declared unconstitutional based upon the individual mandate, which brings us to point 2.

2) A strong, fully formed public option is the only way to necessarily make this bill constitutional. Without the public option, Americans are compelled by government to buy health insurance from the private sector; with the public option, Americans may choose between the government's option and private options, using each to balance against each other. It may not be good for us, but it is not unconstitutional for the government to compel us towards its axis (re: Selective Service, income tax, etc.) and represents a way in which the mandate may both pass the tests of the courts and benefit the American people. Remember, Republicans: repeal requires either overriding President Obama's veto with 2/3 of both houses or electing in 2012 a filibuster-proof majority in both houses and a conservative president (aka not Mitt Romney, who passed this basic bill in Massachusetts.)

3) The bill fails to recognize geographical inflation to the detriment of the middle class. This bill levies a hard tax upon couples making a combined $250k a year. In New York City, a fireman and a nurse who marry make that amount combined, but with the prices of goods, services, and real estate in NYC, no reasonable person would consider that couple "rich." One of the original proposals for health care reform proposed taxes on individuals making $500k a year and couple making a cool million; that would more accurately reflect income disparities in the nation, even if it would not help the houses make their bill fraudulently "cost effective." By setting limits where they are, the Congress has declared war on the urban middle class.

4) Once the Hyde Amendment is appealed and the President's executive order on abortion is either overturned by the courts or unsigned by the head of the executive branch, this Catholic blogger will support only one abortion: the abortion of Bart Stupak in his mother's 174th trimester.

Rap Ruminations

2010-03-12T21:38:00.003-05:00

A couple things to point out about some recent hip hop singles (and one really old one):

-She don't know that we going back to the crib! Well obviously. You think a self-respecting woman is going to want to be alone with Chris Brown in his apartment?

-Good to see that Kesha has incredibly low standards. We kick 'em to the clock unless they look like Mick Jagger? Jack Flash was one of the ugliest human beings on the planet - in the 60s.

-Speaking of bitches with 60s icons on the brain: 50 Cent thinks about Paul McCartney a lot. I wonder how often McCartney thinks about 50?

-If Lil' Wayne resembles any citizen of Bedrock, it's the Great Gazoo. After all, this was Weezy's mugshot.

-It's easy to wonder why Robin Thicke continues to do his Marvin Gaye impression and focus almost exclusively on babymaking music with the occasional sensitive self-awareness ballad . . until you hear his attempts to stretch beyond those two genres. Sacre bleu!

-There's nothing quite like making a song extolling the virtues of The Bronx and filming it in Shea Stadium.

-If Jay-Z is always on the next one, why does he keep coming back to the name "blueprint" for his records?

-To conclude, the most ironic line in hip hop history. I made a Yankee camp more famous than a Yankee can.

Bill Simmons calls Empire "one of the five most brilliant songs ever made." He attributes the success of the song to Jay-Z, specifically his feeling that he's accomplished everything except rivaling Frank Sinatra for New York's go-to song. Being from Boston, he neglects the process by which the song became legendary.

Blueprint 3 came out in September, with "DOA" and "Run This Town" as the two singles promoting the album. Jay noted in interviews that "Empire" was his favorite song on the record, and it was sure to be released as the third single. Yet while the song would be connect with New Yorkers on a grand scale, there was no guarantee that it would top the charts in every other city.

About a week after the album came out, Derek Jeter began using it as his walkup music, which turned on light bulbs in Yankee fans' heads. "Jeter is New York, this is the perfect song for him." Jeter tends to walk up to a popular rap song of the moment with lyrics he identifies with, but like Sinatra with "My Way", Alicia Keys' chorus on "Empire" fits Jeter so well that he should never give it up.

Anyway, Jeter began using the song, and other Yankees gravitated to the album (A-Rod walked up to "Already Home", another fantastic choice). As the Yankees began storming through the playoffs, and national audiences were greeted to Jeter walking to bat with "Empire" (much credit goes to Fox for starting the bottom of the first with Jeter walking up and the announcers silent). Middle aged people in flyover country began enjoying the song as the Yankees gained momentum, leading the Jay-Z and Keys performing the song live on Fox at Yankee Stadium before Game 2 of the World Series. And the song climbed up the charts and stayed there, turning a relatively big rap song into a cultural watershed moment, thanks primarily to Jeter (and Keys, whose ringing hook is the song's most memorable moment).

The aforementioned line ought to be revised. Jeter ought to guest on the track and tell the truth:

I make Hova more famous than Hova can.

Patches Kennedy, Motivational Speaker

2010-03-12T00:16:00.004-05:00

Blagojevich hair, Kennedy blood, and the voice of a man who lives in a van down by the river!

The message is legit, but this shows the importance of messengers.

Half expected him to end with "BYEAH!"

Nuking Feinstein's Proposal

2010-03-01T09:49:00.004-05:00

Today, the New York Times covered the Obama Administration's efforts to change America's nuclear capabilities. In the soon-to-be-completed Nuclear Posture Review, the Administration is likely to recommend updating our existing weapons arsenal while rejecting any ideas to build new weapons, such as the "bunker busters" Obama's predecessor pushed for.

It is hard to quibble with any of the Administration's positions outlined in the article, so instead, focus on Senator Dianne Feinstein's quote about nuclear deterrence. The Obama Administration appears unlikely to adopt a "no first strike" policy on nukes, which has led Feinstein and other Democrats to pressure Obama:

to declare that the “sole purpose” of the country’s nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attack. “We’re under considerable pressure on this one within our own party,” one of Mr. Obama’s national security advisers said recently.

If the sole purpose of our nuclear arsenal is to deter attack, the least effective way of doing so would be to announce to the world that we will not use nukes unless attacked. If the US were to adhere to Feinstein's ideals, we would essentially be giving our enemies a free shot, saying, "If you nuke us, we're going to nuke you ten times over." Yet we are not dealing with the Soviet Union anymore; some of our enemies would gladly take that tradeoff, content in going to their uranium-fused graves knowing that they nuked the United States.

Inside the Pentagon and among many officials in the White House, Mr. Obama has been urged to retain more ambiguous wording — declaring that deterring nuclear attack is the primary purpose of the American arsenal, not the only one. That would leave open the option of using nuclear weapons against foes that might threaten the United States with biological or chemical weapons or transfer nuclear material to terrorists.

Feinstein does not grasp that the most effective method of negotiation is to talk tough, to maintain a legitimately frightening posture and then trade pieces afterwards. John F. Kennedy relinquished US missile holdings in Turkey to diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, but only after he scared the living daylights out of them; the same is true of Ronald Reagan's successful negotiations with the Soviets in the 1980s.

The Revolutionary Guard in Iran would not openly attack the US with its own weapons; it would instead use proxies such as Hezbollah or some anonymous group to deliver destruction. Under Feinstein's proposal, the United States could effectively do nothing to deter them.

Our audience for nuclear weapons lies in Iran, Syria, and North Korea. For more rational actors like Russia and China, the Obama Administration has set precautions with its proposed missile defense system:

The missiles would be based at new sites around the United States that might even be open to inspection, so that Russia and China would know that a missile launched from those sites was not nuclear — to avoid having them place their own nuclear forces on high alert.

The states who can be rationally deterred are being deterred - and the irrational actors have no guarantee of US benevolence to deter them.

Hope & Change in Pakistan? UPDATE

2010-02-19T03:22:00.004-05:00

Pakistan is back in the news, and for once, the news is good. Dozens of jihadis, including some big names, have been rounded up by the ISI in the last few weeks, an almost unprecedented level of success by an organization known for playing both sides against the middle in the War on Terror.

While these raids are cause for celebration, it also should bring pause to the serious American policymaker. Is this newfound success here to stay, or is it a blip on history's radar screen? Also, are these raids the result of American actions, or are we largely spectators in a low-intensity Pakistani civil war?

Since the ISI has basically allowed senior jihadis to reside in Pakistan (though not to plan future attacks) since the fall of Kabul in 2001, it is peculiar that they flipped the switch so dramatically. Speculation has been rampant, with the following theories flying around:

1. The jihadi incursion out of the northwest territories and into Pakistan proper led to a strong military response by President Zardari last summer. A resurgent jihadi movement means more power for the civilian government - and less for the ISI.

2. President Obama privately threatened to use Predator drones in major metropolitan areas, including Karachi. With Zardari's government feeling the heat from his citizens about Predator drones in rural areas (witness Hillary Clinton's visit to Islamabad), any Predator strike in that populous a center would mean major trouble for all members of the Pakistani government.

3. President Obama threatened massive cuts in military aid to Pakistan.

4. A recent US intelligence pickup in Oman led the CIA to figure out exactly where these jihadis were hiding - down to the building. The ISI could use smoke and mirrors with the Americans in the past, with Americans knowing that jihadis were in a general area but possessing no specific intel. In this case, CIA knowledge forced the ISI's hand.

5. The captured jihadis went rogue and veered off of the ISI's roadmap. These jihadis were no longer assets and became expendable.

6. This item could really be 5a: The captured jihadis were willing to make peace with President Karzai and the current Afghan government. With no active war, the ISI loses its leverage with the US (for military aid) and Karzai (whose government has laid the groundwork for close ties with India).

The questions may remain unanswered for quite some time, but at the very least, these are fascinating developments, hopefully to continue for at least the near term.

UPDATE: We apparently have our answer.

Expanding the Base

2010-02-04T15:33:00.003-05:00

It's difficult to calibrate what exactly makes a country a "superpower", but certainly one defining characteristic is the ability to place military bases in other nations. During the Cold War, two nations held that capability, but since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has stood alone - until now.

With a roughly 10% quarterly growth in GDP, China looks poised to leave the global recession behind and continue making strides as a world power. Its economic power has increased dramatically in the last few years through trade deals and economic development of many African countries, though this may be due to the fact that China will deal with tyrannical regimes (Sudan being the most prominent). Now, China is considering setting up a military base in Pakistan - something that worries many American conservatives.

It shouldn't, for a host of reasons.

First, the idea is merely in the planning stages, and there is no guarantee that the Pakistanis would go for it. In the midst of a brutal insurgency led by Islamic fundamentalists in the northwest and with India still irked about the Mumbai bombings by Lashkar-e-Taiba, Pakistan is more reliant on American aid than ever, and handing over territory for the Chinese military would no doubt displease American officials. With drone strikes at an alltime high, America is reliant on Pakistan, too, but unlike the reign of Pervez Musharraf, where George Bush's government sent billions in aid to Pakistan for little more than a prayer that Musharraf help the Americans, America has a stronger bargaining position.

Second, China shares a border with Pakistan, so it is in its national interest to monitor the near chaos occurring in its backyard. Dealing with its own Islamic insurgency in the border regions, China has a vested interest in making sure the situation in Pakistan does not get out of control - an interest shared by Pakistan and the United States. One would hope that no Asian power would object to the United States closely monitoring a difficult situation in Mexico; it would be hypocritical for the US to expect leniency in its own backyard from others and then object to other powers doing the same.

Third, China does not currently have the capability to place military bases far beyond its borders. The United States holds the unquestionable edge in military reach, with bases in Colombia, Kuwait, Iraq, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Afghanistan, and Nigeria. When China considers putting a base in, say, Syria, the US should start worrying - but not now.

Finally, China's projection of military power probably has more to do with a populous rival a little closer to its borders. Having fought four wars against India in the last 70 years, China is concerned over American efforts (beginning under Bill Clinton and continuing under George Bush and Barack Obama) to build India up as a regional superpower. India has quietly increased its presence in Afghanistan under the US occupation, and with Pakistan nearing chaos, India could potentially step in to help the US secure nuclear weapons and deal a backbreaking blow to the terrorists who have bombed Indian urban centers repeatedly over the last decade and a half. China would loathe seeing India increase its presence and status more than anything the United States could do to it, short of selling weapons to Taiwan (oops!)

In sum, China's move is not a big deal, for now. The US should closely monitor the situation in case things get serious in the future.

Obama Calls Out the SCOTUS

2010-01-28T16:25:00.003-05:00

There are plenty of places on the net to find reactions to the President's first official State of the Union address, so all The Q will say on the matter is that the good new proposals (the ceiling on college loans, the cutting of capital gains taxes, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, and an all-inclusive energy policy), horrific regurgitations (cap and trade, amnesty, refusing to claim victory in Iraq), funny ad-libs, and the usual Bush-bashing were all washed away in the tsunami-like devastation of the speech's length. While Bill Clinton set the record (97 minutes!), Obama's speech dragged on so long that The Q found himself yelling out, "Popcorn, peanuts, crackerjacks!"

The main issue at hand is another noticeable disagreement between Obama and a member of his audience. Last September, South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson screamed, "You lie!" at Obama over his denial that illegal aliens would be covered under the Congress' health care proposals. This time, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito took umbrage at Obama's disapproval of the Court's ruling on FEC v. Citizens United. While the decision was constitutionally correct, the potential consequences of corporations directly purchasing ads for candidates has worried many Americans - though that's not the worst idea Americans have been subjected to this week.

Republicans and conservatives have gotten their outrage on over Obama's statement, saying it was beneath presidential decorum to challenge the Supreme Court so openly in the State of the Union. While rare, Obama's move is not unprecedented - Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan invoked Supreme Court decisions in a negative light during State of the Union addresses, and George W. Bush chastised lower court "activist judges" over gay marriage rulings in his '04 SOTU.

Perhaps some of the outrage comes from Obama's almost monarchial approach to things last night; not only did Obama challenge the Court over Citizens United, he also smacked down Congress' reluctance to form a bipartisan deficit commission, bragging that he would use an executive order to do so anyway.

Alito's outburst arrived not because the President disagreed with the decision, but because he misrepresented the decision and lied to the American people about the laws of the land:

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

Obama stated that the court opened:

the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.

Special interests have influenced elections for years regardless of the decision; instead of doing so directly, they formed political action committees to do their dirty work. The Supreme Court's ruling does not change this fact of life for the worse; it just makes things more transparent. Wasn't "transparency" one of the cornerstones of Obama's campaign?

Of course, this concern about foreign money influencing American politics is rich coming from a guy who turned off the address verification system for online donations to his campaign. Donations from a man claiming to be from "GA" were automatically assumed to be from the state of Georgia, with no way to verify whether the man was from Georgia the American state, Georgia the neighbor of Russia - or the Gaza Strip.

Rather than end on such a heavy note, allow The Q to present the main crux of Obama's speech being criticized by an eloquent former US Senator from the great state of Illinois:

Breaking the Levees

2010-01-26T15:40:00.003-05:00

One man is responsible for the New Orleans Saints' first Super Bowl - and it's not Brett Favre.

Favre has spit at the concept of karma time and time again, with his repeated flip-flops on retiring to his revenge-fueled trip to the Twin Cities, but while the 18 year veteran made a throw in the final seconds that even high school quarterbacks would shy from, he is not responsible for his team's loss - both literally and spiritually.

In fact, Favre fought against that man for much of the season.

Brad Childress is an easy man to dislike, from his upbringing in the Philadelphia Eages organization (inheriting in his DNA an over-reliance on the passing game and comically inept clock management) to his personal grooming, which makes him looks as if his last date involved Chris Hansen.

Literally, he blew the game with his conservative playcalling on the final drive: twice, he instructed Favre to meekly hand off to a running back who had fumbled six times in the prior four quarters. After the second run, he called a timeout and sent twelve offensive players onto the field, drawing a senseless penalty that forced Favre into a passing play on third down.

Yet Childress' arrogance and lack of sportsmanship were duly noted by the football gods. Much like Bill Belichick's decision to run up the score repeatedly in 2007 (including having Tom Brady throw 60 yard bombs against overmatched coaching legend Joe Gibbs in the nation's capital) and secretly videotape opponents' practices led to one of the biggest instances of karmic vengeance in history (losing the Super Bowl 2 minutes away from perfection, then having Brady be KO'd for the year on the first drive of the season, and finally posting the best record of any team in history not to make the playoffs), Childress' decision to run up the score against the hapless New York Giants in Week 17 and the clearly defeated Dallas Cowboys in the divisional playoffs leaves this viewer wondering if that somehow affected his team's hands in the NFC Championship. Adrian Peterson had a history of fumbles, but Percy Harvin and Bernard Berrian were not exactly pre-Coughlin Tiki Barber before Sunday's contest.

What is unquestionable is Childress' hubris on the final drive. While Ryan Longwell could kick field goals of up to 52 yards in the pregame warmups, it was foolish to settle for a potential 53 or 54 yard field goal. Childress should have instructed his team to gain at least ten more yards before deciding to kick; instead, he had his team practically recline on Bacaloungers without taking into account any potential mischief. His contentment with a risky proposition and his undisciplined atmosphere led to a situation in which Favre could once again thrust himself unnecessarily into the spotlight - with disastrous results.

The Q feels horrible for Vikings fans throughout the country who have suffered mightily since the team's inception. The fans graduated from four inept Super Bowl losses to five painful NFC Championship losses, ranging from a 41-0 drubbing at Giants Stadium in 2000 to this example of schadenfreude. Yet nothing rings more clearly and painfully than the 1998 NFC Championship game - those Vikings were among the three greatest teams never to win a Super Bowl, and to have their perfect kicker finally choke with a few minutes to go is something those fans will never be able to live down.

They will continue to be destroyed by karma, though, unless they deal away all of the supernatural problem children. Favre is close to retirement, but the Vikings will never win a meaningful game until Childress is on the unemployment line.

Next year, the Vikings will appear multiple times on NBC's Sunday Night Football. Childress should not join them.

The only NBC show Childress should appear on is now canceled.

The Middle Child

2010-01-20T04:34:00.003-05:00

When the New York Jets play the Indianapolis Colts in this year's AFC Championship Game, Giants fans will experience "middle child" syndrome.

This doesn't mean that the Giants won't receive as much parental love as their siblings. With the exception of Eli Manning and his young wide receivers, no one on that Giant team deserves any outpouring of affection after this season.

It simply means that Giant supporters will be watching as their little brothers play against their big brothers - literally, in the latter case. Peyton Manning is already one of the top five quarterbacks to ever play professionally, and his omnipresence perhaps overshadow the fact that he is a class act on and off the field. Yet despite winning an unprecedented four Most Valuable Player awards, breaking countless passing records, and winning a Super Bowl championship (and MVP), Peyton Manning was never happier than while watching Eli slay the undefeated Patriot dragon. The sheer pride he took in watching his little brother shatter all expectations will forever be a part of Giants fans' memories. Anytime Peyton leads the Colts onto the field (other than when facing Big Blue), Giants fans will cheer him on.

Big Brother faces off against the little brother, the Jets. Despite the comedy of errors that is the majority of the Jet fanbase, most Giants fans bear no ill will towards their stadium co-tenants. It is always entertaining to watch the Jets fail, especially at the most inopportune moment, but in the rare case that the Jets perform well, the average Giant fan is not filled with the rage and despair that accompanies successful achievements by the Eagles or Cowboys.

Much like a big brother, Giants fans hope to see the Jets do well, though take great pleasure in the Jets failure. Being older and more successful, big brothers are able to be more magnanimous towards their younger siblings while still maintaining a healthy rivalry. Little brothers, by contrast, are desperate to break out of the long shadows cast by their elders; they tend to resent the successes of their bigger brothers. With the exception of the Giants-Patriots Super Bowl, Jets fans loathe Giant achievements and seek other methods of validation to offset their grief.

This dymanic is also clearly seen in baseball, where nothing makes the majority of Mets fans happier than a Yankees loss. Some clearly deranged Mets fans actually rooted for their hated divisional rival in Philadelphia to vanquish the Yankees in the 2009 World Series; this is clearly contrasted with the universal support of the 1986 Mets by Yankees fans when the Mets were the only thing standing between Boston and baseball glory.

It should be noted that this phenomenon only enters the fray in congested sports cities. When geography is not relevant, the situation is reversed: little brothers cheer for their big brothers, while the big brothers largely ignore their little siblings. Much like in real life, it is the anxiety that comes from constant contact in closed quarters that leads to negative reactions. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Throughout the Jets run, this Giants fan has been beaming with pride, yet that ends on Sunday. While it would not be the end of the world if the Jets win, the Colts are the clear favorites for many Giants fans, even with the knowledge that Colts fans don't share any particular enthusiasm for Eli Manning's team.

Why should they? They're the big brothers - and they're not from New York.

The Tomorrow Show

2010-01-13T18:11:00.003-05:00

In the midst of the late night mess, NBC has left itself three options for The Tonight Show: going back to Jay Leno, sticking with Conan O'Brien, or promoting Jimmy Fallon.

It should choose none of the above.

Fortune favors the bold, especially in the television business. Roone Arledge of ABC perhaps best demonstrating this principle in creating primetime openings for football and baseball games and for creating a news program, Nightline, to gather an information-starved audience for whom Johnny Carson's light-hearted humor wasn't sufficient. Few television executives had the foresight that WNBC's producers did in 1953 when placing Steve Allen on the air after 11PM.

From Allen's brilliance, The Tonight Show was born.

Allen, Jack Parr, and especially Carson proved that the talk-variety show was a major success in the era of three channels, and when Carson moved the show to Los Angeles, the public got a heavy dosage of the Hollywood celebrities they had been fascinated by since the 1930s. All of Carson's successors, such as Leno, O'Brien, and David Letterman, have run their shows in the same format that Carson used to great success.

The format is simple: a monologue of pre-scripted jokes to open, some crazy pre-taped skits afterwards, two Hollywood celebrities (with the occasional animal trainer), and a musical guest.

The format is out of date and needs to be shelved.

Despite Leno's ratings dominance until NBC's idiotic decision to boot him in 2009, the late night talk show has become culturally irrelevant, with few significant exceptions - President Obama's appearance on one of Leno's last Tonight Shows is the last time the American people by and large watched one of the programs, to name one. Leno has been criticized by NBC's local affiliates for the dismal ratings his 10PM show attracts, yet that obscures the truth that Leno's 10PM program has retained almost his entire 11:30 audience. Much like the 6:30 newscasts, ratings for late night programs have hemorrhaged since the popularity of cable and the internet, while the numbers for prime time programs have not suffered such as much.

Just one look at the format shows that the late night talk show is lagging behind both direct and indirect competitors in every area. Political humor is much sharper on Comedy Central's Daily Show/Colbert Report block than it could be in any late night monologue; websites such as TMZ and shows like Access Hollywood provide more in-depth coverage of Hollywood celebrities than any ten minute conversation airing after midnight; and thanks to YouTube, ITunes, and AOL, to name three, music is more widely shared and distributed than at any time in history.

Perhaps the only redeeming feature left is the pre-taped skit, yet these, too, suffer in comparison to shows on cable networks that do not have the expectations of network censorship weighing down upon them (Chappelle's Show, Da Ali G Show, and even the pre-2000 episodes of Saturday Night Live have enjoyed far more freedom than even the manic and clever O'Brien). It also helped to air once a week. Any writing team will fail to completely entertain their audiences with skits five nights a week; at least two of the five days of programming will contain subpar attempts at humor.

If NBC were run by any executives whose intelligence at least matched a group of monkeys with typewriters, the late night talk show, as currently construed, would be jettisoned for the near future. None of their current options are appealing:

1. Leno is the best bet to replicate his prior success, due to older viewers agreeing with his bland sense of humor, but this entire affair, beginning with Leno remaining open to ejecting O'Brien from his spot months earlier), has undoubtedly damaged Leno's brand and will lead some of his earlier viewers to reject him.

2. O'Brien & Fallon both covet a demographic more likely to catch the highlights of their programs online the next day. Younger viewers do not necessarily subscribe to the "appointment viewing" concept that NBC wishes to establish again.

3. In this double-dip recession, people are too concerned with their own stability to worry about NBC's late night drama. The biggest beneficiary of Leno's move to 10PM has not been Letterman, but Nightline.

The only true successes in late night in the last decade have come from those who pushed against the current format - Craig Ferguson is still too entangled in the format but has replaced the monologue with a stream of consciousness rant with no preconceived punchlines, and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have achieved a public importance that belies their modest ratings by specializing in political news.

It's time for the talk show, as currently imagined, to go the way of Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon, the two men who perfected it - into a blissful retirement.

Let's say "Good night" to Tonight.

Twice a Bridesmaid, Never Top Gun

2010-01-12T15:18:00.002-05:00

"President Obama is leading an extreme left-wing crusade to bankrupt America," warns an electoral district's "last line of defense."

This rhetoric is commonplace in Republican and tea-party circles, and the more vitriolic the language, the more enthusiam the candidate generates.

The fact that this language is coming from John McCain of all people may initially shock the senses, but a closer look at McCain's record of defeat reveals him to be less of a Maverick and far more of an Iceman - at least, in the first half of the movie.

Twice, John McCain has sought the Presidency by running on a combination of his core beliefs and his moderate sensibilities. Twice, McCain lost to a candidate promising to be far more moderate and judicious, only to reveal their true colors after the election.

One can practically hear McCain shouting at George Bush or Barack Obama after they began their terms, "I don't like you because you're dangerous."

There is a distinctly personal element to McCain's initial embraces and then notable breakups with his former opponents that a different person could diagnose as "petty." McCain wouldn't see it like that, of course; McCain sees himself primarily as an honorable figure whose fallouts are due to the lack of honor of Bush and then Obama.

Yet a case could be made for the "petty" argument based on McCain's changes of heart on specific positions. McCain ran in 2000 pushing for tax cuts and conservative justices, yet he railed against the Bush tax cuts, joined with Senate moderates in forging a middle ground on Bush's judicial appointments, and even flirted with running as John Kerry's Vice Presidential nominee against Bush in Bush's reelction campaign. In 2009, McCain voted against every one of Obama's legislative signatures.

The most interesting of McCain's conversions is his push to reform Wall Street by overturning the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. If McCain had won the Presidency, there is a very good chance that he would have nominated as Treasury Secretary the very man who repealed the Act in the first place: Phil Gramm. Gramm was a nonfactor in the campaign after calling Americans "whiners" in June, yet McCain's open disdain of Mitt Romney may have left Treasury open for a Gramm comeback - much in the same way that McCain came back to defeat Romney in the primaries.

The financial aspect is most interesting because it is precisely McCain's waffling on the Wall Street collapse that led directly to his collapse. And that brings us to an outlier that may sabotage the "petty McCain argument": Sarah Palin.

McCain was running a losing campaign until he selected Palin as his VP candidate. With Palin, McCain finally pulled ahead of Obama and stayed there until Wall Street went up in flames and McCain's myriad responses to the crisis poured gasoline over his campaign and lit a match. Some suggested at the time of Palin's selection that McCain and his advisors chose her primarily to function as a post-election punching bag. And while the McCain advisors have gone out of their way to trash Palin and scapegoat her for the loss, McCain himself has stayed above the fray and had nothing but praise for Palin.

In fact, McCain has often been self-deprecating, pointing to Palin's wild popularity among conservative activists and undeniable personal energy as the only good things about his campaign. While advisors lie through their teeth to shift the blame off of themselves for their horrendous work, McCain seems at peace with his pick, focusing his wrath on Obama's broken promises and less moderate agenda.

There is no doubt to this writer that McCain's anger at losing has twice impacted his response to successive presidencies, yet his reaction to Palin shows that it is not losing in itself that triggers his temper. It is the ordinary practice of presidential politics - the deceit of the American people - that makes McCain rage.

For true Mavericks, even those whose knowledge of global issues is alarmingly sparse, Iceman McCain has a different message.

International Patriot Act

2009-12-23T15:11:00.004-05:00

The President has just violated American sovereignty in the still of the night.

An Executive Order signed by President Obama last week allows Interpol, the international criminal police organization, to operate freely inside US borders without worrying about being held accountable by arms of the federal government.

Obama amended an executive order by President Ronald Reagan signed in 1983 that treated Interpol agents like foreign diplomats with two exceptions. One of the exceptions allowed the feds to search and seize Interpol property and assets if Interpol overstepped its boundaries.

Thanks to Obama, that exception is gone.

Quite frankly, this is biggest expansion of law enforcement capability without critical oversight since Congress passed the Patriot Act in late 2001.

Major complaints with the Patriot Act came from civil libertarians and constitutional experts who worried that there was no check on the executive branch's newfound power. Despite their worries, the Supreme Court could have stepped in to overturn portions of it, and Congress subjected portions of the Act to a sunset provision set to expire in 2010 (provisions Obama wants to extend).

There is now absolutely no check on Interpol's power.

Andy McCarthy looks at the potential ramifications from this EO.

UPDATE: Jake Tapper provides a detailed history of executive orders dealing with international organizations and concludes that there isn't much to worry about in Obama's EO.

Two Legged Dog

2009-12-17T13:08:00.002-05:00

Both incredibly sad and incredibly powerful. What a wonderful creature, providing inspiration for our military who suffer in the battlefield.

Yahoo won't let me embed.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/odd-15749658/first-person-faith-the-dog-inspires-with-two-legs-17174061

Af-Pak Poker Face

2009-12-02T22:32:00.005-05:00

Even though his cards are unrelated, the President is raising the stakes with four cards showing - hoping the river gives him a straight or a flush.

President Obama outlined a new strategy in Afghanistan last night, committing 30,000 additional American troops for an 18 month period. Troops will begin withdrawing in July 2011 no matter what, even though conditions on the ground will affect the scope and speed of the withdrawal.

He's not going all in, as President Bush did in Iraq; in that case, either the occupation would be won or the region would descend into complete chaos and the presidency considered a complete failure. By contrast, President Obama intends to keep some chips in his possession, even if he loses the hand. If the new strategy does not work, there are other ways to keep fighting, on both fronts: Predator drones and cruise missiles in Afghanistan; health care and a recovering economy for Obama's personal prospects.

The plan is a mix of Richard Nixon's Vietnamization - and note: in Obama's passioned defense that Afghanistan is not another Vietnam, he does not differentiate strategy - and George Bush's surge in Iraq. That isn't the only thing Obama lifted from his predecessor: looking at the text, Obama appears to have lifted a prior Bush speech verbatim, crossing out the threats to other nations and the hopeful talk of human rights and replacing them with relevant portions of his biography (opposition to Iraq, intention to close Guantanamo, hoping to end nuclear weaponry, etc.). For an executive in an administration that blames the Bush-Cheney regime for every problem it faces, real or imagined, Obama does take quite a bit from Bush - The Daily Show noted the similarity of rhetoric in Obama's inaugural, and his speech on Iraq in the early spring had quite a few Crawford overtones.

Of course, Obama has good reason to view the Bush Administration with antipathy: despite giving a vintage Bush speech and surging troops into a warzone, Obama was hammered by both Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, immediately prior to and after his address. John McCain, while far more positive in his assessment, also expressed strong skepticism about the timeline aspect - conveniently forgetting that he endorsed a timetable for Iraq that would be predicated on the conditions in the field. That is precisely what those charged with enforcing the policy - Bob Gates, Hillary Clinton, David Petreaus, and Stanley McChrystal - intend to do here.

There are a few issues that require far more discussion than has been allotted:

1. The Afghan Army - one of the things Obama did not order as part of his new strategy is a massive increase in Afghan conscription. In Iraq, it took many years to rebuild the army; by June 2007, the Iraqi Armed Forces were ready to take the lead in counterinsurgency operations, with a memorable siege of Basra by Prime Minister Maliki near the conclusion of the surge aided only by US air support. Afghanistan is far larger than Iraq geographically, yet the army is far smaller. This can only lead to trouble.

2. The Khyber Pass - Another reason our adventure in Iraq turned out successfully was our agreement with Kuwait to house troops. Thanks to Kuwait's unwavering support, the US had a completely safe supply line to continue occupying Kuwait's formerly problematic neighbor.

Earlier this year, a major bridge in the Khyber Pass, the narrow strip not controlled by Iran, China, or Russia through which supplies could arrive to Afghanistan, was blown up by Taliban allies. With our enemy to the west, our pissed off creditor to the east, and an opportunistic mafia junta pulling the strings on the "stans" to the north, our only supply line is through Pakistan, which is having plenty of its own problems with Taliban allies.

3. India - Obama, like Bush before him, is relying heavily on the Pakistani government to hold up its end of the bargain, despite obvious signs that Pakistan deserves no such trust. For all the talk of 9/11 in Obama's speech, one fact has been almost completely blacked out: a week before the attacks, Mohammed Atta was wired $100k by the chief of the Pakistani intelligence services. Imagine the outrage in England if George Tenet were found to have financially aided those responsible for the 7/7 attacks.

There is, however, one reliable democratic partner in South Asia, one whose assistance would probably be welcomed by many of the Afghan tribes and who, like America, has experienced first-hand terrorist attacks on its shores from the Af-Pak region. The largest Muslim nation in the world (besides Indonesia) ought to be more involved in the outcome of their regional conflict, Pakistani feelings be damned.

4. Joe Biden - For the better part of four years, the current Vice President and eternal assclown demanded that Iraq be broken into three separate countries. Nevermind the inconvenient truth that Iraq was primarily composed of one nationality divided by a religious subset: Biden refused to take "No" for an answer, correctly noting the arbitrary nature of its border creation and neglecting Saddam Hussein's imposition of "Arab Power" in the souls of its citizens.

Yet here we have a truly random construct, comprising no less than five nationalities, that has been locked in civil wars between these nationalities for over three decades . . .

What sayeth Joseph of Scrantonathea?

Perhaps he was inspired by his tour of an Afghan school:

The New Progressives

2009-12-01T12:11:00.000-05:00

We’ve come a long way from Michael Dukakis.

In 1988, Dukakis was soundly defeated by George Bush for the Presidency primarily because the Bush campaign successfully labeled Dukakis as a “liberal.” A generation later, Bush’s son narrowly beat another Massachusetts aristocrat by associating him with the “L” word, and since then, many on the left have given up on trying to defend the word. Their solution was simple: rebranding. The left is no longer “liberal”; they’re “progressive.”

A closer inspection of the progressive movement shows that the rebranding is not merely an alteration of nomenclature.

In the early 20th century, the Progressive movement reached its zenith with the aid of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Not content to wield the power of the government to break up monopolies, aid organized labor, and protect the environment, the progressives also attempted to centralize decision-making in the hands of the few, wise academics. These academics helped bring us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, the League of Nations, and prohibition. Wilson, the first academic president, is also famous for brutally cracking down on those opposed to World War I.

Now that America has elected its second academic president, major pieces of legislation aim to centralize decision-making in the hands of the few and the wise again. Sarah Palin’s hyperbolic critique of health care “death panels” touched a nerve with those who realized that a major part of Barack Obama’s initial health care plan was to convene an independent board of health care advisors to make decisions that affected ordinary Americans. Obama has also not wielded the power of the government against corporate malfeasance, as the original progressives did; he’s merely imported such malfeasance by assuming control of most of America’s automakers.

A deeper look at Obama’s overall record reveals one glaring consistency: the increasing power of the federal government. Due to the right’s relentless criticism of Obama, the uninformed independent voter would be surprised to realize that Obama has retained much of the Bush-Cheney national security strategy, from increasing the level of combat in the Af-Pak theater (with additional troops, but also with a great increase in Predator drone strikes) to embracing that Administration’s warrantless wiretapping policies and state secrets privileges. Obama has pledged to close Guantanamo Bay, but that is merely symbolic; he has asserted the right not only to indefinitely detain terrorist threats, but also to preventively detain them, and the Bagram Air Force prison, which operates under almost the exact same policies as Guantanamo, is still open for business.

While the liberal of old wished to use the power of the federal government to aid the poor and oppressed and achieve social justice, as progressives do today, they maintained a healthy skepticism of government power, especially in the context of civil liberties. Grudgingly accepting Gerald Ford’s statement, “A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take from you everything you have,” liberals routinely demonstrated in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage, and drug decriminalization.

Yet even on these social issues, there has been a subtle shift to advancing the power of the state since the switch from liberalism to progressivism. The fight over gay marriage has swung from the freedom of two members of the same sex to enjoy the same rights as two members of the opposite sex to a fight over the role of church and state in government; how better to explain the left’s attack on the Mormon Church over Proposition 8, when so many that voted against gay marriage were African-American Protestants and Latino Catholics? While foods may not be considered drugs in the normal sense, the progressive crusade against smoking in public places and against trans-fatty acids in foods has made its way to powerful offices, such as New York’s City Hall. And while the debate over abortion is still dominated by the “woman’s right to choose,” the threats of overpopulation and global warming have faintly entered the discourse.

Even the literal definitions of the two words we discuss today show how the mindset of the left has moved. An online dictionary lists the main definition of liberal as “not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas”; the definition suggests something of a finished product, content with its status in the world. By contrast, “progressive” infers a flawed but fixable product that needs to be amended by outside forces to reach its potential.

For half a decade, the left has requested that they be referred to as progressive.

It’s time that their wish is granted.

5 Failures of Sports Legends (Entirely in Uniform with Their Great Triumphs)

2009-11-17T23:47:00.011-05:00

It's natural for the fickle sports fan to criticize their heroes for messing up. It's incredibly frustrating when a sports figure contradicts everything he supposedly stood for.

Sometimes, though, the criticism comes for a questionable decision that, nonetheless, is consistent with that sports figure's history and personality.

Bill Belichick Goes for It On 4th & 2

From his own 28 yard line, with Peyton Manning threatening to get the ball and take the lead, Belichick made the widely panned decision to potentially give Manning only 30 yards to go, as opposed to definitely giving him 70. With Tom Brady, Wes Welker, and Randy Moss on the field, one can be more confident than most in getting two yards to win the game. Yet this decision crossed the fine line between "confident" and "arrogant".

And Yet - Isn't this the same guy who spent half of 2007 running up the score like a vindictive high school coach? Isn't this the same coach who refuses to spend more than a camera's flash congratulating a coach who's vanquished his squad? And didn't his decision to go for it on 4th down win the Atlanta game earlier this year? For years, Belichick has been an arrogant prick, yet with three Lombardi trophies in his case, few have complained. 4th and 2 is not even the most egregious example of Belicheck's conceit (4th and 13 in the Super Bowl a few years ago?), yet this very quality made him the great coach he's been.

Michael Jordan's Hall of Fame Speech

The crowning moment of a career, the Hall of Fame speech is a time to be gracious, self-deprecating, and bid a fond farewell to the sport that made them famous. One does not need to venture off of Jordan's induction to find fitting examples of this practice: David Robinson and John Stockton exuded class.

Jordan spent his time in the spotlight, however, airing petty grievances, stating that real and imagined slights from a cast of minor characters turned him into the man he was on the basketball court. The speech was awkward, uncomfortable, and gave everyone a far more negative opinion of Jordan than before the night started.

And Yet - Jordan was celebrated despite the well-known anecdotes of punching teammates out at practice, being the biggest trash-talker in the league, and freezing Isiah Thomas out of the 92 Olympics. All of these (with the exception of the Dream Team story) merely demonstrated Jordan's incredible competitiveness; his desire to be the best led him to maximize his talent and outperform those who may have been more gifted than him. His speech was an incomplete list of those instances that made him the legend he was.

Manny Ramirez Showers During a Dodger Loss

When Jimmy Rollins knocked Jonathan Broxton off the mound in Game 4 of this year's NLCS, Ramirez was nowhere to be found. Exiting the shower, Ramirez had to be informed by reporters of his closer's chokejob. Ramirez was roundly criticized for not caring about the outcome of the game.

And Yet - His manager, Joe Torre, understood Manny's scrub in the tub as supreme confidence in his closer and his team. Manny assumed that when Broxton came to the mound, the game was over.

One could argue that Manny above all should realize the fallibility of closers: it was his Red Sox that outlasted Mariano Rivera in Games 4 and 5 of the '04 ALCS. Yet back then, with his team down 3 games to none, Ramirez seemed unperturbed, which was lauded then as the best attitude to take in the face of elimination. In 2007, too, Ramirez found himself on the brink of elimination and stated, "Hey, what happens happens. I'm here to play the game." And so he did, all the way to another championship.

Brett Favre Returns Again . . . and Again . . . and Again

Brett Favre's done more waffling than an Eggo factory in the last few years, staging sentimental retirement press conferences only to ask for a real life version of MS Word's "Undo" button a few weeks before the next season started. With ESPN's Rachel Nichols spending her summer camped out on a Mississippi lawn, fans understandly complained about the fickle Favre.

And Yet - Favre was lauded throughout his career for being different from the great quarterbacks of his day. Unlike the rather conventional Troy Aikman or Joe Montana, Favre was wildly unpredictable, bringing a boyish enthusiasm to a man's game. For almost two decades, Favre defied convention in Green Bay, fluctuating from the brilliant to the bizarre and blazing an uncharted path for quaterbacks. It would be nonsensical, then, for Favre to have a conventional exit from the stage.

Joe Namath Wants to Kiss Suzy Kolber

What can be said about Joe Namath's infamous drunken antics on the sideline of an ESPN-broadcast Jet game in 2003 that hasn't been said already? Broadway Joe inspired plenty of pity for his performance while pissed.

And Yet - The Namath we all remember fondly was always wildly erratic and a playboy with balls of steel. Namath famously guaranteed Super Bowl victory despite being two-touchdown underdogs, wore a fur coat and a mutton chops on the sidelines when quarterbacks looked like Marines, and, perhaps most appropriately, threw more interceptions than touchdowns over the course of his career. The only quarterback to throw for 4,000 yards before advent of the 16 game season, Namath struggled with injuries yet won admirers far beyond his lone Super Bowl season by the sheer strength of his cojones.

Based upon those undisputable facts, it is not entirely shocking that Namath would embarass himself in a nationally televised game; he did so plenty of times during the 1970s. And let the truth be told: it would be far more shocking for Namath not to try his luck with Kolber.

Holder's 9/11 Misstep

2009-11-13T15:29:00.006-05:00

Today's news that Attorney General Eric Holder will seek a federal conviction of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and 4 co-conspirators for the planning of the 9/11 attacks deserves a closer look.

Mohammed is being tried in New York City in a civilian court for the worst terrorist attack of the millennium against American interests. Yet Holder also announced that the mastermind of the second worst terrorist attack of the millennium against American interests is being given a military tribunal - Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the man who planned the bombing of the USS Cole.

The cynical left claims that this move is meant to ensure that the state obtains guilty verdicts in all cases, even if the masterminds are truly not guilty. The paranoid right claims that the move is meant to air out all of the Bush Administration's illegal methods and inspire European judges to indict and try Bush Administration officials for their crimes.

Both positions are belied by the evidence. I'll start with McCarthy.

Holder announced today that the trial of Mohammed would be "mostly open" - the most sensitive portions, however, would be closed to the press based on national security interests. McCarthy's position that sensitive government information would be leaked from the trial is countered by Holder's position - in fact, since there are many Bush-era appointees still working for the Justice Department who have more influence over day-to-day operations than Holder, it more than likely that those sensitive procedures would remain classified. The only people hearing this information would be Mohammed, a judge, and twelve random New Yorkers.

As to McCarthy's charge that Europeans might go after Bush officials: he needs to read The Q. They are already proceeding with indictments against Bushies, and there is more than enough evidence in the public sphere to proceed. This trial will not significantly alter anything that isn't currently in motion.

Onto Greenwald: once again, Greenwald is concerned with how something "appears" to the world rather than the actual constitutional value of the decision. The military is entitled to hold military tribunals for anyone who has committed an act of war against the United States armed forces, which al-Nashiri did by bombing a US warship in Yemen. Others being tried by military tribunals include Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al-Darbi, Noor Uthman Mohammed, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi, and Omar Ahmed Khadr, all of whom were captured in Afghanistan.*

Holder stated that one of the reasons that al-Nashiri was placed into the military justice system and Mohammed the civilian was that al-Nashiri attacked a ship "docked in foreign territory, rather than a civilian target on American soil."

Yet the news that Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, would be tried in the military justice system adds a bit of confusion to the proceedings. The attacks were against military targets, but on American soil. Yet Mohammed, too, attacked a military target - more than 200 of the American dead on 9/11 were at the Pentagon, the ultimate symbol of American military might. In fact, Mohammed stated that the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon were the targets on 9/11 precisely to strike at the symbols of the Western economy and military.

It is worth considering that Hasan, far more than Mohammed and his four friends, encapsulates a man committing an isolated and extreme act of violence. Of course, Hasan is a military man, which forces him to be tried by military tribunal. Yet in contrast to the singular, somewhat random attack by Hasan, Mohammed and the al-Qaeda Four declared war on the United States, and Mohammed's repeated attempts to attack United States interests, including military targets, qualifies him as an enemy combatant.

There is also the issue of the impartial jury, the hallmark of the civilian trial. Since jurors must be over 18 years of age, there is not a single potential juror who does not remember the horror of 9/11. Everyone has an opinion on 9/11 - the strong majority who believe in Osama bin Laden and Mohammed's culpability combined with the vocal minority that shout "Guilty" at members of the Bush-Cheney military-industrial complex and at the state of Israel. Military tribunals, by contrast, do not live up to such a high standard, yet in this one case, the standard is not high, but impossible.

The truth is that despite their suffering at the hands of CIA contractor enhanced interrogations, Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Tawfiq bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi deserve to go in front of a military tribunal.

*Khadr actually should not be put in front of a military tribunal. The boy was captured in an Afghan village when he was 15 years old.

This may sound silly, but this is The Q's view: military tribunals should only be used for those old enough to join the military at the time of the crime.

Khadr has been referred to as a "child soldier", and there should be alternate methods to ensure his prosecution.

UPDATE: Agreeing with The Q that Barack Obama should've given Khalid Sheik Mohammed a military tribunal is . . . Barack Obama!

Glimpse Behind the Healthcare Reform Mask

2009-11-11T19:11:00.005-05:00

The debate over federally funded abortions reveals the true goal of the public option: government-run health care.

The much-written about Stupak Amendment, added at the last minute to the House's health care reform bill, strengthens the protections of the Hyde Amendment, a 1990s era bill that bans abortion providers from receiving federal money. In light of its passing, pro-abortion representatives have done everything from assuring The Left that that the Stupak Amendment will be discarded to threatening to strip the Catholic Church of its tax exempt status. The President has wisely kept his distance, voting "present" yet again, but hinted on Good Morning America that the language of the Stupak might have to change:

TAPPER: Do you think that amendment is status quo or does it lean a little bit in one direction or the other?
OBAMA: I think that there are strong feelings on both sides. And what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo.

Here's the thing: Stupak's Amendment does not change the status quo.

When the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was a legal procedure, it took a "Heisman position" - keeping a safe arm's length from the practice. While women were allowed to get abortions without facing prosecution, the federal government was not required to financially assist them. The Hyde Amendment in the 1990s made this much clearer, stipulating that no federal dollars would pay for abortions. To this day, the Supreme Court has not struck down the amendment, making it constitutional.

As things currently stand, women have to pay out of pocket for abortions, whether on their own or through private insurance plans. If health care reform passes in its current incarnation, things would stay the same: women purchasing abortion insurance from private plans, but not able to receive abortions from taxpayer dollars.

The only way this situation would change, where women would not be able to receive insurance for abortions, would come if the government's health care plan was the only plan available.

Now we're onto something.

See, if the public plan is fully and indefinitely funded by Congress, there is no way the private insurance companies can compete. Inevitably, these companies will go out of business, leaving only the government's health care for the American people.

A government health care without abortion coverage.

That would be a quantum setback for abortion rights in the US.

That would require the Supreme Court to wade into murky waters they've successfully avoided for decades.

And that Court wouldn't necessarily rule against Stupak-Hyde.

So unless the Senate and House conference committee decides to act against the wishes of the American people, the House of Representatives, and (based on bellweather Ben Nelson's words today about the Stupak Amendment) the Senate, The Left must choose only one of the following:

Socialized medicine or federally funded abortions.

Qui Bono?

2009-11-05T13:41:00.002-05:00

You can't make this stuff up:

This week is the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down.

U2 are marking this special event by playing a free show. Thousands in the city plan to watch the show, which MTV plans to simulcast around the globe.

MTV could not, with the present setup, ensure optimal camera shots for its worldwide audience. So, the city of Berlin decided to accomodate them . . .

By building a wall that will prevent many Berliners from getting a good view of the show.

Smart Power

2009-11-04T11:45:00.004-05:00

Secretary of State Clinton has boasted that the new administration will get results the previous one couldn't through the use of smart power.

We haven't seen much power, lately, and here comes the "smart":

Clinton made what appeared to be an inadvertent slip of the tongue in a television interview with the al-Jazeera network, referring to the goal of “an Israeli capital in east Jerusalem.”

More brilliance from the woman who brought us the "overcharge" button and made screaming at ten year olds fashionable.

Look, even the Israelis don't want a capital in East Jerusalem. It's the international politics equivalent of Mike Bloomberg and Bud Selig saying that the Yankees could play half their home games in Citi Field if they felt like it, leaving the Mets to play conflicting games in the parking lot.

Yet here goes Hillary, attempting to out-Biden the VP.

Madame Clinton claimed that she would not run for President again.

She better not - not with this year on her record. Remember, this gig was supposed to shore up her foreign policy weaknesses.

Smart move.

Smart power.

Yankee Present Vs. Yankee Past

2009-10-28T12:12:00.001-04:00

The Yankees are on pace to win their first World Series since 2000, but to do so, they must overcome a team very similar to their old selves.

The 2009 Yankees are built around four core groups: the homegrown veterans (Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada, and Mariano Rivera), the high-priced offseason acquisitions (CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Mark Teixeira), the scrappy farm system call-ups (Robinson Cano, Melky Cabrera, and the majority of the bullpen), and the vagabonds (Alex Rodriguez, Johnny Damon, and Hideki Matsui). This postseason, with the exception of Rivera, Jeter, and long reliever David Robertson, the only consistent performers were the two highest paid free agents in baseball: Sabathia and Rodriguez.

This was not the case in the late 1990s. Those Yankee teams did not have any homegrown veterans showing the way; they had far fewer young players from their system making an impact (just the four mentioned earlier, Bernie Williams, and, for one month, Shane Spencer); and, in a marked contrast, did not throw their money around to make an impact. Before the Roger Clemens signing in 1999, those Yankee teams shrewdly picked decent players off of small market teams through a variety of trades and bargain basement signings. Paul O’Neill arrived from struggling Cincinnati, David Cone came from hopeless Kansas City, Tino Martinez and Jeff Nelson from a loaded but stingy Seattle organization, and Chuck Knoblauch turned up from perpetual small market Minnesota. Yet these situations were paradise compared to the drug rehabilitation centers Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry were rescued from, to say nothing of Orlando Hernandez’s dramatic escape from Cuba.

The defending champion Philadelphia Phillies are constructed from this mindset. An outstanding young core of Ryan Howard, Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley, J.A. Happ, and Cole Hamels has greatly aided the organization, but much credit should go to the front office for their imaginative pickups. Jayson Werth languished as a bench player on other organizations; Shane Victorino barely made it out of other teams’ farm systems; Pedro Feliz disappointed San Francisco with great promise but many injuries; and Brad Lidge, the closer, was a star on the rise in Houston until a titanic playoff home run by Albert Pujols sent his career into a tailspin. Other than Cliff Lee, the Phillies’ recent moves ventured towards the high-risk gamble on players well past their prime: Jamie Moyer, Matt Stairs, and Pedro Martinez made their professional debuts in the Reagan-Bush presidencies; Raul Ibanez, at 37 years old, failed most recently in Seattle; and Chan Ho Park, the first Korean-born MLB player, never lived up to the Hideo Nomo-inspired hype in Los Angeles during the 1990s.

The comparisons become more astounding when examining some of the individuals head to head. Jeter and Rollins are extremely comparable players: tenacious leadoff hitters who hit for high averages but have power if necessary and always have a knack for getting a hit at a key time. They play shortstop in a similar manner, with strong, accurate arms and a fantastic double play turning ability masking some of their other deficiencies. Pettitte and Hamels are both lefty gunners who rely on off speed pitches to confuse batters and have carried their teammates on their back at times (Hamels deservedly won the MVP award of both playoff rounds in 2008, and Pettitte acted as the “stopper” in 2003 playoffs, winning every game he pitched after a Yankee loss). Utley reminds one of Bernie Williams: a career .297 hitter that hit almost .340 in a breakout year for his team (Utley in 2007, Williams in 1998); a hitter with a good amount of home run power that sometimes struggled in the playoffs, except for when his team needed him the most. Finally, while Ryan Howard is a far greater power hitter than Posada ever was, their career average is remarkably similar, and they both occupied, even at young ages, valuable leadership positions on their teams.

There is only one person from that Yankees core that has no near-equal on this Phillies team, or on any team in the history of baseball: Mariano Rivera. During the Yankees late ‘90s run, Rivera pitched brilliantly, especially in the postseason, where he had almost 35 consecutive scoreless innings. Rivera blew the World Series in 2001, thanks partially to his wild throw in a bunt attempt, and also blew two saves against the archrival Boston Red Sox in the 2004 postseason – though only one of which was really his fault. Yet it is possible to think that Rivera is better now than he was during the glory days: his regular season numbers from 2005 onward, with 2007 notwithstanding, eclipse his earlier numbers, and his heroics in this postseason, including a scoreless 2+ inning outing in Game 2 of the ALCS (his longest postseason outing since 2003) and getting out of a bases loaded, no out jam unscathed in ALCS Game 3, have added to his legend. Brad Lidge was a phenomenal closer last season, and he has performed well in this playoff, but if the Yankees hold an edge in this series (with Howard equaling Rodriguez and Lee matching Sabathia in performance), it is entirely due to Rivera.

This series should be a classic, and it is entirely possible that it will go seven games. The Yankees have home field advantage, but that is negligible, since Philadelphia and New York share the same weather (the cold weather games in New York and Philly in the Championship Series clearly rattled both Los Angeles opponents) and since Phillies beat the Yankees two of our three in The Bronx in late May. Considering how it seems that every position comparison could go either way (Utley versus Cano? Howard versus Teixeira? Jeter versus Rollins? Sabathia and Pettitte versus Lee and Hamels? All four of these matchups are tossups), and considering how these Phillies have the grit, determination, and makeup of the old Yankee teams, this World Series, on paper, is the best matchup in at least a decade.

The difference will be Rivera; it always is.

The Global Warming Files, Part 88 UPDATE

2009-10-27T13:29:00.004-04:00

If we need to save the planet from the perils of global warming, everyone needs to stop doing things they actually enjoy.

Say goodbye to eating meat!

According to Lord Stern, a leading British "expert" on climate change, it's essential to give up steaks, burgers, pork chops, and bacon (to say nothing of chicken and fish, the grey areas of meat-eating):

“Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

The road to achieving this great success is to stop letting your mind and senses enjoy what the mouth is consuming and think of something else:

He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

Yes, because eating one meat-centered meal can kill you, loved ones, or complete strangers. It's exactly like drinking and driving . . .

The aristocrat did get one thing correct:

“I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary.”

Let's keep that in mind when Congress attempts to ram cap and tax down the American people's throats.

UPDATE: Yes, overpopulation is a problem. Well, not actual overpopulation: just an overpopulation of First World residents.

The Precedent of the United States

2009-10-23T06:35:00.003-04:00

The current president has sometimes been called, by friend and foe alike, “The Precedent”, for his ability to break barriers his predecessors could not. The Obama White House’s war on Fox News is certainly breaking barriers.

When the Administration attempted to bar a Fox reporter from interviewing Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg, the other news organizations refused to conduct their interviews unless Fox’s interview request was granted. This was the first concrete shot fired in a war of words that officially began the previous Sunday, when David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel warned the other networks not to cover Fox stories because “they are not a legitimate news organization.”

Of course, administration complaints about news coverage are as old as America itself: Walter Cronkite spoke of how the Johnson White House was on the phone to CBS nearly every night with suggestions and grievances. The Bush White House reportedly froze out MSNBC in its last year, according to Press Secretary Dana Perino.

Yet MSNBC carries a special distinction: it, along with the business networks owned by Fox and GE, is the only news network that is not independent. MSNBC is merely the 24 hour vehicle of NBC News, and while Bush’s press team detested the cable network, it never ceased to do business with Tim Russert, David Gregory, or Brian Williams.

When the Bush team did criticize NBC itself, it attacked the news coverage, as prior administrations had. A one-on-one presidential interview with Ross Engel became a subject of controversy when NBC edited out part of Bush’s answer explaining a portion of his speech to the Israeli Knesset, and Bush’s advisors criticized NBC News for their use of the term “civil war” in regards to the chaos in Iraq.

Does Obama’s White House share the same concerns? Not quite:

Robert Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight or five this afternoon.

Gibbs’ ire is directed at Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, but no one in their right mind would consider Hannity’s and Beck’s programs as straight news; least of all the opinionated hosts themselves. When the Bush White House criticized the New York Times, it attacked their news division for leaking classified information, not their op-ed pages. When they confronted NBC, it was on the editing of interviews, not Keith Olbermann’s special comments.

Yet the White House has a problem with Hannity and Beck. This brings us back to the incident in question: the interview with Feinberg. The White House took action by trying to cut Fox News out of the press pool when it came to Feinberg on Thursday. But on Monday . . .

Carol E. Lee, Politico: Does that mean the White House doesn't believe they should be part of the press pool?

Gibbs: The press pool is decided by the White House Correspondents Association.

Lee: So you have no opinion on whether they should be –

Gibbs: I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job.

The man who the White House wanted to freeze out? Major Garrett, Fox’s White House Correspondent, which makes sense to Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director, right?

“We think Major Garrett is a legitimate reporter,” Dunn told Michael Scherer of Time.

Truly, precedents are being set.

A General Unfit for Command

2009-10-21T13:12:00.002-04:00

After the political pressure placed on George Bush's three attorney generals by various members of the administration, one of the successes of President Obama's term has been the independence of the Department of Justice. So far, it appears that the only decision Obama has had any influence in has been his choice of attorney general, Eric Holder.

He made the wrong choice.

From letting Bill Richardson go unscathed for his various high crimes and misdemeanors, to dropping charges against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia last November, to being willing to prosecute the CIA interrogators who stretched the bounds of torture but resolving not to go near the architects of the policy, Holder has seemed determined to revive the reputations of John Ashcroft and Michael Mukasey.

With this latest insanity, though, Holder is embarking into Alberto Gonzales territory for incompetence, if not Thomas Gregory malice towards American principles.

To summarize, a small town in North Carolina wished to have nonpartisan local elections, with no political parties involved. The town, though, is still covered under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the federal legislation that finally guaranteed the right to vote for African-Americans. Thus, the feds could stick their nose into local politics if necessary, and did they ever:

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Where to begin?

First, the Founders warned against political parties, even though they realized that the formation of parties was inevitable. Yet while it may seem impossible to have a national election without political parties, local elections, based on local issues and faces familiar to the voters of the small towns, can and probably should be waged without political parties. Let the candidates be defined by their positions and personalities, not on some slavish devotion to a party platform.

Second, for a man who called for a conversation on race, it might not be comfortable to point out that a black man believes that black people cannot vote without the shorthand of political parties. Is it completely illogical, in the mind of the Attorney General of the United States, that black people cannot vote the way white people do? Allow The Q to pull out the race card.

Eric Holder, you're being a racist.

Third, this is the most naked politicization of the Justice Department, outside of Rove-Gonzales, in a long time. This is a blatantly naked attempt to ensure that Democrats, or at least those with views that mirror Holder's and his subordinates', achieve and consolidate power.

It's time for Holder to go.

It's Come To This

2009-10-06T00:29:00.004-04:00

CNN and Yahoo News run a factcheck of a Saturday Night Live skit.

Where to begin?

On a day in which the President refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, the rest of the world met to consider the Saddam Option, and ABC confirmed what we all knew - the Bush Administration lied to the American people and spooked Congress into using $750 billion of taxpayer money as a payoff to its cronies, CNN decides to waste valuable air time by factchecking a comedy show.

Now, there was no comedy in the SNL skit, which was a frustrated rant by SNL's writers aided by a Pavlovian audience trained to laugh at pauses in the soliloquy. Yet the very nature of comedy is to exaggerate certain things. Factchecking a comedy routine is like packing winter clothes for a Caribbean vacation.

Yet even the factchecking itself is not factual. Fred Armisen (a horrible Obama, but much better at other history making executives) states that "Afghanistan [...] is actually worse." The factcheck refers to Obama sending two additional brigades to the front but dodges the actual claim: It is worse. More Americans have died in Afghanistan this year than in any year since the conflict began.

Perhaps the most egregious offense in this entirely offensive concept is the complete lack of honesty and irony. While taking four minutes to protect Obama's image from satire, CNN glowingly references the "dead-on" impression of Sarah Palin by Tina Fey last year. If a show attacks Obama, it needs to be scrutinized; if a show attacks Palin, it "reinforces an impression [that she] is ill-equipped for the job."

And here's the irony: many Americans, when the conversation steers to the former Alaska governor, instinctively respond, "I can see Russia from my house." The fact is that Fey and the writers dreamed up the line; Palin never said it. Yet there was no factcheck, not from CNN or Yahoo News, nor anyone else in the LTM*.

Of course, if anyone knows facts, it's the host of the segment, Wolf Blitzer:

*Leg Thrill Media

BONUS: Five other CNN factchecks.

Chicago is OUT!?

2009-10-02T12:55:00.003-04:00

It's a basic fact of life - the more confident you are in yourself, the more that you project positive vibes, the better you will do in the face of various challenges.

Despite its poverty and crime, what city gives off more positive vibes, whether fantastical rather than true, than Rio de Janeiro? From its striking annual Carnival festival to its gorgeous weather and laid back atmosphere, from the beautiful Brazilian models that bombard fashion magazines to the statue of Jesus Christ, Rio represents, in theory, the best qualities of the Southern Hemisphere, especially the growing colossus that is South America. Considering that the continent has never hosted an Olympics, while the imperial continents of North America and Europe have held more than their fair share, it is fitting that Rio has received the "Hope" and "Change" of the Obama Era. Consider Rio's victory an example of redistribution of wealth.

And that brings us to the headliner of the "We Suck '09 Tour". Starting with his warmup show in Berlin last year, and continuing to Vienna, Port of Spain, Cairo, and the United Nations General Assembly, Obama has traveled the word desperate to make amends for our less than illustrious past. It has not all been a repudiation of the Bush Administration's bullying and warmongering; it has also addressed slavery, Manifest Destiny, and our imperialistic designs, both economically and militarily, throughout the 20th century.

The tour extended to Copenhagen:

“We’ve got everyone. This could be a meeting in Chicago, because we look like the world. Over the last several years sometimes that fundamental truth about the United States has been lost,” he said.

“One of the legacies of this Olympic Games would be the restoration of that understanding of what the United States is all about and a recognition of how we are linked to the world.”

Yet the truth is, Obama's done nothing right in this regard. He endlessly apologizes for America's conduct of the War on Terror, yet continues extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, and military strikes on foreign countries. He speaks of inequality while giving billions of dollars to Wall Street bankers and American car executives who failed miserably at their jobs, at the expense of the American taxpayer. He subordinates the tough business of addressing rogue nation states so as not to spoil the image of success for himself.

Obama attempts to come across as extremely confident - he actually comes across as extraordinarily arrogant and narcissistic. But much of it is a facade. He does not come across as confident in his country, believing that only he can give the country value. Even more damaging to both he and country, though, is the fact that he does not have the confidence in himself to enact national security policies that match his rhetoric. He does not have the confidence in himself to do the hard lifting to meaningfully reform health care. He does not have the confidence in himself to tell the American people that meaningful reform will inevitably lead to tax increases, directly or indirectly. He does not have the confidence in himself to tell the American people his true plans to regulate the energy sector in worship of the Global Warming Cult.

A man who has to lie about his true intentions or refuses to do the hard work necessary to achieve his goals is not a confident man.

And the International Olympic Committee saw right through the facade. So does Vladimir Putin, and so do the tinpot dictators attempting to acquire nuclear weapons and successful missile technology.

You know who didn't see through it, though?

Tony Harris of CNN

Right Idea, Wrong Time

2009-09-29T12:29:00.003-04:00

The Obama Administration can't catch a break on foreign policy. After three months of slamming the Honduran government for removing Manuel Zelaya as President (a move the Congressional Research Service recently admitted was lawful), the Administration finally realized that Zelaya was being "irresponsible and foolish". The military removed an unconstitutionally overreaching Zelaya and installed what appeared to be a modest and prudent interim government, and it took the Administration a quarter of a calendar year to recognize it.

Unfortunately, the day they did so was the date the interim government proved to be anything but modest and prudent:

The de facto government of Honduras that took power three months ago found itself increasingly isolated Monday after suspending basic civil rights and closing down television and radio stations allied with ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

Governments ranging from the United States to Chile to France condemned the moves, as did the Organization of American States, Human Rights Watch and the leading candidate for president in Honduras.

This move has squandered whatever international goodwill the Micheletti government may have had.

Nice Little House You Got There

2009-09-22T13:29:00.002-04:00

I'd be glad to take it off your hands if you do me a favor.

Let's say you live in a small town. Now since it's a small town, and since we've gone through a housing crisis, your property isn't worth what you'd like it to be. Still, you want to sell it and move elsewhere. Of course, the place you want to move is a trifle more expensive than your old house.

What are your options?

A. Try and sell the house and then find a bank still standing for a generous mortgage.
B. Stick it out and live in the old house until the property's value eventually rises.

Those are your only two options . . . unless you're a Congressman:

C. Have a drug company buy your property for more than twice its value, then drive the health care debate in a way advantageous to said drug company

No link to Politico, since they're scumbags:

Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross — a Blue Dog Democrat playing a key role in the health care debate — sold a piece of commercial property in 2007 for substantially more than a county assessment and an independent appraisal say it was worth.

The buyer: an Arkansas-based pharmacy chain with a keen interest in how the debate plays out.
Ross sold Holly’s Health Mart in Prescott, Ark., to USA Drug for $420,000 — an eye-popping price for real estate in a tiny train and lumber town about 100 miles southwest of Little Rock.

"You can buy half the town for $420,000," said Adam Guthrie, chairman of the county Board of Equalization and the only licensed real estate appraiser in Prescott.

But wait! There's more:

But the $420,000 that USA Drug paid for the pharmacy’s building and land was just the beginning of what Ross and his wife, Holly, made from the sale of Holly’s Health Mart. USA Drug owner Stephen L. LaFrance Sr. also paid the Rosses $500,000 to $1 million for the pharmacy’s assets and paid Holly Ross an additional $100,000 to $250,000 for signing a noncompete agreement. Those numbers, which Mike Ross listed on the financial disclosure reports he files as a member of Congress, bring the total value of the transaction to between $1 million and $1.67 million.

And that’s not counting the $2,300 campaign contribution Ross received from LaFrance two weeks after the sale closed.

Holly Ross remains the pharmacist at Holly’s Health Mart under USA Drug. Neither she nor her husband agreed to speak with ProPublica for this story.

Your Congress at work, America.

Census Bureau No Longer Has Large ACORNS update

2009-09-11T18:56:00.003-04:00

So long, community organizers.

For those who don't know why ACORN got into so much trouble, there were two separate documented incidents in which ACORN workers attempted to aid pimps in keeping their prostitutes, many of whom come from El Salvador, in line.

In related news, Wayne Brady stood up in solidarity with ACORN, as shown in this final video clip:

UPDATE: Maryland prosecutors considering bringing charges against . . . the filmmakers.

The Van Goes Under The Bus

2009-09-08T22:22:00.003-04:00

Van Jones' resignation is nobody's fault but his own - for denying his 9/11 Truth sympathies.

The real problem with Van Jones is not that he signed a petition asking for an investigation into whether high level Bush Administration officials deliberately allowed the September 11 attacks to succeed in order to push their radical agenda on a terrified populace. While a strong majority of Americans are still uncomfortable attempting to wrap their heads around that concept and even more uncomfortable being associated with those who believe that no plane hit the Pentagon, that the Israeli Mossad was behind the attack, or that the Trade Centers were blown up from the inside, those same Americans would realize, after a period of sober reflection after the initial uproar subsided, that Van Jones' questions had nothing to do with his duties and responsibilities in the Obama Administration.

As one of the Administration's special advisors for green jobs, Van Jones was supposed to do the following: “helping to shape and implement job-generating climate policy; working to ensure equal protection and equal opportunity in the administration’s climate and energy proposals; and publicly advocating the administration’s environmental and energy agenda.” Essentially, Jones would be one of a few in the Administration that would hand out contracts and organize labor to create green jobs - weatherizing buildings, installing solar panels, and reworking mass transit systems and electronic grids.

As previously stated, Jones' questions about 9/11 had nothing to do with his White House job. His denial, however, had everything to do with it, and this is why he had to go. Take it away, Jake Tapper:

A source says Jones did not carefully review the language in the petition before agreeing to add his name.

To sum up: A guy who refuses to carefully inspect the tiny details of a petition is hired by the Obama Administration to hand out contracts and ensure that the American people aren't screwed over by -

Wait for it! -

- the tiny details hidden in said contracts.

Jones had to go not for his past views but for his present spin. The American people may be willing to accept almost all kinds of seemingly wacky views, including ones that may allege Bush Administration criminality, including mass murder and treason.

But after eight years of verifiable Bush Administration incompetence, they won't accept someone who demonstrates that he or she is completely unqualified for a vital position in government.

How Jay-Z Fell Off

2009-09-02T00:13:00.003-04:00

The Blueprint 3 has hit Youtube, and the results are in: meh. It's not even close to The Big 3 (Reasonable Doubt, Blueprint 1, Black Album), but then, you knew that going in. There are a handful of genuine jawdroppers ("Venus Vs. Mars", "Already Home", "So Ambitious"), a few mediocre Hov flows (The Q hates "Hate" regardless of lyric quality), but far more than either fall into a third category: hot beats wrecked by rather pedestrian Jigga braggadocio lyrics. Songs like "Run This Town", "Off That", and - to a lesser extent - "On to the Next One" find Jay-Z in a rather Lay-Z mode verbally, namechecking the high-end brands that he can afford due to all his cash and talking generally about how great he is.

Of course, Jay-Z is great at talking about how great he is; he's made quite a lifestyle out of talking about his lifestyle. Thanks to the consistent level of professionalism, Jay-Z's beats are almost always quality, which is more than half the battle in crafting a great song - how many MCs have remained underground because their background music could've been crafted on a $69 Casio? Jay's ability to turn a phrase is a legendary, but the storytelling on his earlier albums, especially his first, placed him in a pantheon far above professional. Yet many of the songs on the new album tell neither a compelling story nor feature innovative turns of phrase. That isn't the problem, though; it's never been a problem for a Snoop Dogg or a 50 Cent, whose hot beats and smooth flows are enough to satisfy this listener's ear.

The problem revolves around what a Snoop and a 50 have in common, something Jay-Z doesn't share. Both Snoop and 50 are perfectly content to make millions by rapping; the stated intent of their lives and careers is to make as much money as possible, hook up with as many girls as possible, and enjoy their success. Indeed, Snoop and 50 have reached a level where they can appear in movies, sell their own cologne or energy drinks, and reap the benefits of these decisions while letting others do all the hard work. This may be the dream of almost every rapper in the business, and certainly any rapper with marginal talent has the ability to achieve this dream.

Shawn Carter is different. Like his fellow renegade, Jay has higher talent and a higher purpose. With Beyonce on his arm, Jay became determined to bring professional basketball back to Brooklyn, ran Def Jam Records, helped Bono raise awareness of a global shortage of water, and campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008. Jay has also taken great strides in bringing popular guitar based music and hip hop together (The Q refuses to call Coldplay and most of the acts at Glastonbury "rock and roll") and strove to show that rappers could have disagreements and feuds without resorting to killing each other.

And that's part of why Jay-Z is seen as having fallen off. A man is judged partially through the prism of his ambition. A man who wanted to be a police officer his whole life would be considered a success if he became a police officer. That patrol officer may work under a decorated sergeant with more power and influence than he, but suppose that decorated sergeant dreamed of becoming a Senator or Secretary of State. Who has had the more satisfying career of the two: the more decorated sergeant who failed to achieve his dreams, or the modest patrol officer who has everything he wanted as a boy?

Like Nas and Eminem, who had similar periods of disappointment, Jay-Z is too talented and has worked hard to make himself too important to coast lyrically, yet the majority of his last three albums have been just that. When 50 fell off, it was by writing a bunch of pseudo love songs and making those godawful sexual metaphors ("Candy Shop", "Amusement Park", etc.). What Jay has been on his last three albums is 50 at his best: brash, cocky, and in your face, waving his success in the face of his opponents. But by the standards he's set for himself, that's just not good enough.

On "Encore", Jay said that he'd come back "wearing the 4-5 like Jordan".

Unfortunately, he's come back as Washington Wizards MJ - flashes of brilliance, but a shell of his former self.

NFL 09 Preview

2009-08-29T22:56:00.004-04:00

As the baseball season winds down, it's good to reflect on The Q's triumphs (Detroit, Texas, Yankees, Philly, & the Angels), failures (what the hell, Arizona and Houston), and the ultimate combination of laughter and pity (Carl Pavano being more durable than the entire 25 man roster of the Mets). With October still weeks away, the NFL takes center stage in The Q's prediction file.

Bowing to the President's slogan, the NFL is ripe with "change." The Colts have a new coach, the Jets have a new quarterback, the Giants have no wide receivers, and Tony Romo managed to erase two headache inducing bitches from his rolodex. When told that Terrell Owens would be playing in the home of buffalo wings, Jessica Simpson stated, "There's no bison in upstate New York!"

To save time, here are the teams with no shot at making the playoffs:

-Oakland Raiders, Kansas City Chiefs, Denver Broncos, Cleveland Browns, Cincinnati Bengals, Detroit Lions, Seattle Seahawks, St. Louis Rams, Washington Redskins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Miami Dolphins, New York Jets, and finally, the Minnesota Brett Favres

Quick comments on that list:

1. Coaching changes in KC, Denver, Cleveland, Tampa, and Seattle will not be enough to move their teams into contention due to major losses at tight end (Tony Gonzales), QB (Jay Cutler, the steady Garcia for a questionable Leftwich), WR (Tory Holt, and Seattle's considering resigning Steve Largent), and dignity (that Brady Quinn energy drink commercial kills any chances of good karma arriving in the Mistake by the Lake).

2. The Dolphins were a complete fluke last year due to their Wildcat offense and soft schedule. They will not be so blessed.

3. The Jets will be vie for most improved franchise, but they feasted on a soft schedule last year until the Favre collapse. The schedule will not be as forgiving.

4. Minnesota has the running back with the most fumbles combining with the 87 year old quarterback with the most interceptions in the NFL. Despite finishing 5-11, ESPN will cover the Favres more than any other franchise outside of Dallas, Boston, or BuffaTO.

Here are the teams guaranteed to make the playoffs:

-Chicago Bears, Tennessee Titans, San Diego Chargers, New England Patriots

1. The Bears going from Kyle Orton to Jay Cutler at QB is like the Mets going from a committee of schmucks to Frankie Rodriguez at closer. Combine that with a defense quite conscious of their underachievement last year and you have a near lock for the playoffs.

2. Tennessee was a fluke game away from an AFC Title brawl with a Pittsburgh team they manhandled a month earlier - they've actually gotten better in the offseason, with key acquisitions at WR and QB (not starting the season with The Young & the Restless, starring Vince Young).

3. The AFC West.

4. Tom Brady.

That leaves these teams with a legitimate shot. The alphabetical breakdown:

Arizona Cardinals - the NFC champs return, but Warner is a year older, and they won't win the division at 8-8 again. Cardinals need to show improvement, and with only one day game in Eastern Standard Time, they just might.

Atlanta Falcons - Matt Ryan is the real deal, but they also shocked a lot of people in a year where the Saints and Bucs folded like every non-Bond or villain character in Casino Royale.

Baltimore Ravens - Joe Flacco also impressed, but needs to improve over the course of a full season. The losses of Rex Ryan and Bart Scott may hamper the team slightly, but this team will still be in the thick of it in December.

Buffalo Bills - Despite his team-destroying reputation, the TO Show also makes his team unquestionably better in his first year. Offense was already good with a solid Edwards-to-Evans combo. Defense must step up.

Carolina Panthers - Very schizophrenic one year to the next, with the wheel of fortune supposed to land on "bad" this year. Their horrendous exit from the playoffs last year may fuel them to avoid that jinx.

America's Least Favorite Team- No TO, no Jessica Simpson, no common sense when installing video screens. Cowgirls will be in the mix late in the season, with their fate (once again) falling on Romo the Homo's shoulders.

Green Bay Packers - Aaron Rodgers showed lots of grit last year, but their defense was atrocious. The switch to a 3-4 may be the ticket to January.

Houston Texans - The best team nobody knew about last year. If Matt Schaub remains healthy, this team could shock people again, perhaps grabbing aa wildcard birth.

Peyton Mannings - No more Tony Dungy, but that's okay - their real coach wears #18. No more Marvin Harrison, but that's fine, too - Anthony Gonzalez looks to be an excellent #2. Colts fans are desperate for a season with more playoffs wins than Manning commercials.

Jacksonville Jaguars - Jags had a New York Metropolitans type season last year; there's no way they'll be as bad. Outside shot at a wildcard.

New Orleans Saints - Drew Brees has put up Marino-type numbers, but with Reggie Bush's skills disappearing in Kim Kardashian's behind, he's had Marino-type success. Still, the Saints should bounce back hard this year, especially if Carolina or Atlanta falls off.

Big Blue - Defensive front seven improved due to signings (Chris Canty) and depth (Osi's back), but New York's $90 million man has no one to throw to and no guarantee that he's improved his accuracy in windy conditions.

PETA's Favorite Team - Eagles had two big losses this offseason in the late Jim Johnson and Brian Dawkins. Vick's unpredictablility and the "Win one for Jim" factor, combined with the realization that this may be the last shot the Reid-McNabb-Westbrook triumverate have at glory, are supposed to make the team certain to qualify for January, but the awkward wedging of Vick into a thin-skinned McNabb's playing time and a porous preseason defense leave the Eagles middle of the pack, like the last Rocky movie.

The Champs - Let us not forget that the last time the Steelers won a Super Bowl, Big Ben had offseason troubles and the team struggled. We'll see if Mike Tomlin lets the team sag the way Bill Cowher did in his final campaign.

San Francisco 49ers - They showed signs of life last year. Those signs, however, came with JT O'Sullivan at QB; he's been released to achieve his life's calling - opening a bar named after himself.

With all that in mind, the picks:

AFC

East: New England Bradys
North: Baltimore Ravens
South: Tennessee Titans
West: San Diego Super Chargers
Wildcards: Indianapolis Colts, Houston Texans (longshot)

NFC

East: Dallas Cowgirls
North: Chicago Bears
South: New Orleans Saints
West: Arizona Cardinals
Wildcards: Philadelphia Eagles and . . .

If The Q were a dispassionate football strategist, he would probably pick the Green Bay Packers.

But sentiment tugs at the author too strongly, especially when that sentiment is fueled by these facts:

1. The Giants have made the playoffs every full season that Eli Manning started.

2. The Giants offensive line, when healthy, is the second best in the league (behind New England). Their defensive line, when healthy, is clearly the best.

3. Their schedule is almost identical to the previous campaign, which they breezed through until the Plaxico suspension. In fact, it's even easier, with the only challenging nondivisional games coming via San Diego and Atlanta (both home games).

4. If the Giants are in the race going to the wire, their Week 17 opponent will be quarterbacked by . . . Brett Favre.

Wildcards: Eagles and New York Giants

Chuck Todd Lets the Cat Out of the Bag

2009-08-24T09:56:00.001-04:00

A major member of the mainstream media admitted that the media has not and will continue not to do their jobs. On Real Time with Bill Maher last Friday, Chuck Todd, the director of political news at NBC, exposed his true colors in an argument over Blackwater with investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill.

When asked why the media was not covering both the breaking revelations about Bush Administration criminality and the Obama Administration’s continuation of Bush national security policies, Todd became defensive and let the cat out of the bag.

In a time when the middle of the country has lost faith in their government, and Obama is attempting to restore that faith and accomplish great change, broadcasting this unending barrage of negative news undermines Obama’s efforts. (Paraphrased)

Throughout the election, media personalities bristled at the accusation that they were in the bag for Obama despite overwhelming evidence compiled by media watchdog organizations. Yet playing favorites with candidates, as outrageous as that is, does not even begin to compare with the media carrying water for a sitting president, ignoring detrimental breaking news and downplaying vital disclosures about our recent past. One would ask, how does the United States’ current media condition differ from that of a third world country run by a tinpot dictator?

Of course, Fox News has been relentlessly critical of the President, with Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck being the most notorious and blatant. Yet this is how our media condition differs from those of the third world: the American media’s obsession with “personalities” has placed the objective pursuit of truth on the back burner. Beck and Hannity are not newsmen, but commentators with a certain bias; this would be somewhat tolerable if newsmen did not travel down that road themselves. A Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC or a Don Lemon of CNN have become personalities that rival a Bill O’Reilly or Geraldo Rivera, even though their job description is supposed to be completely different.

If a newsman becomes a personality, that personality drives the news. Don Lemon, for example, has focused on the President’s race and the various reactions to it, to the disadvantage of stories that aren’t so cut and dry. MSNBC – not Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, but the daytime news desk – recently cropped a black man’s skin out of a picture in which the man held an AR-15 assault rifle and then proceeded to insinuate that negative reaction to the President’s health care plan was racial in nature. And we have all chuckled at Fox News’ almost involuntary disassociation from any scandal-plagued Republican, always placing a D next to person’s name that should be an R.

However, all of those personalities collectively have decided to ignore essential subjects that strike at the very heart of the American experiment. Obama’s continued use of private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan in numbers greater than US military personnel has received no airtime, nor has his defense of the state secrets privilege and the construction of the TAPI pipeline (a natural gas pipeline running through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India). While news of the Bush Administration’s political abuse of the terror alerts and the CIA’s partnership with Blackwater were published by the New York Times, clear evidence of that Administration’s targeting of antiwar protestors and profiteering off of drug money in Afghanistan goes unreported. Most glaringly, those who question whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii have received ample amounts of airtime on the cable news networks, yet those who question whether George Bush had no foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks have been completely blackballed.

It is rich that media personalities complain that the American people are uninformed about the issues when they select which stories to focus on and which to keep in the dark. It’s even richer that a member of the mainstream media who took umbrage at allegations of bias during the election has openly admitted his (and his industry’s) bias and yet expects the American people to trust him.

One thing the American people as a whole don’t take kindly to is a group of professionals who ignore the requirements of that profession to perform something else entirely and still richly benefit. Perhaps the American people are far more informed on certain issues, such as media malpractice, than the journalists would like to admit.

The Three Rules of American Politics

2009-08-20T22:26:00.005-04:00

or How Ronald Reagan Destroyed America

By the time Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, presidents of both parties had accepted Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and either made small, cosmetic changes to suit their agendas or greatly expanded the Deal's reach. Desperate to weaken the grip of the federal government on almost all areas of American life, Reagan pursued supply-side economics with a long-term principle in mind: Cut taxes so far that the government would have to cut spending to stay moderately balanced.

Of course, the Democrat Congress refused to play ball with Reagan's plan, leading to astronomical deficits unmatched in American history until George Bush's "Fleet Week" spending.

Now, thanks to Bush's massive tax cuts and ridiculous spending on everything from two foreign occupations to a famous "Bridge to Nowhere", Barack Obama plans to invert Reagan's famous equation. Obama's massive spending proposals, from the stimulus package to health care reform, have this long-term principle in mind: Spend so much money that the people will accept tax raises to return the deficit to moderately balanced.

There's one problem with Obama's plan, and it is the same that Reagan faced. Neither man understood the three fundamental rules of American political life:

1. The American people will never be happy with massive tax increases.

2. The federal government, specifically Congress, will never be happy with massive government spending cuts.

3. The federal government, specifically the executive branch, will never be happy to cede back powers formerly granted to them.

Bush's two terms serve as a primary example of this rule. Along with the shock of 9/11, Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 kept the American people satisfied enough to reelect him. During that time, a supposedly "conservative" Congress pulled a Jane Jetson in regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare reform bill, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, foreign aid, and their own pork barrel earmarks. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney pushed for expanded powers such as the PATRIOT ACT and warantless wiretapping while fighting intensely trivial battles such as keeping his records secret and opposing the formation of the whitewash known as the 9/11 Commission. These actions by Cheney were often merely to protect the prestige and reach of the executive branch, regardless of issue.

Obama has so far disappointed transparency advocates interested in knowing the full depths of Bush Administration activities, even defending the NSA spy program in court. Those angered by this must remember Rule #3.

Yet it is Rule #1 that Obama must keep in his mind, front and center. Reagan was successfully reelected despite ignoring Rule #2, but that is because it took almost a decade for the public to realize how disasterous his policies were. When they did, an eccectric and haphazard third party candidate received 1/5 of the American electorate despite withdrawing from and reentering the campaign numerous times. He did this by focusing on that second rule. His incumbent opponent lost the election, as well, because he promised not to raise taxes but did anyway; rule #1 strikes again.

Bill Clinton sacrificed much of his personal agenda after ignoring Rules #1-2 throughout his first two years. To him, a second term as President was more important than achieving his policy goals. According to a Democratic Senator, Obama is willing to throw a second term out in order to achieve the necessary reforms that will make our country more just and more competitive in the 21st century. With health care supposed to cut the deficit but a Congress that will never seriously cut spending and an energy plan that will undoubtedly raise taxes, direct or indirect, on the average American, there is one message Obama intends to send, no matter how factually incorrect, and one thing that is perfectly clear and perfectly factual:

The message: Obama is a man of principle whose work is more important than he is.

And he is also mindful of the Three Rules.

UPDATE: Speaking of Rule #3...

Media Malpractice & Venezuelan Reform

2009-08-17T00:34:00.003-04:00

With the economy in shambles and health care reform dominating American headlines, the American people have become less familiar each passing month with Hugo Chavez. American media was never partial to Chavez, so few Americans know much about Chavez other than the perceptions he is a loudmouthed critic of US foreign policy and a socialist. Yet the Venezuelan National Assembly have made some fascinating moves - some good, more bad - in the years since Chavez rewrote the constitution.

The most relevant alternative to American culture is written into a new education bill: a requirement that schools educate students in critical thinking - specifically to critically analyze the content of information provided by the media.

Of course, with Chavez, there is always a personal angle to every reform, and this bill is no exception. With the exception of a state-run television channel that routinely features Chavez himself giving speeches and taking phone calls from citizens, Venezuelan television news stations are entirely owned by those in the corporate class who have not only blatantly distorted almost every proposed Chavez reform but actively assisted in the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002. There can be little doubt that Chavez's intentions are not entirely pure, and there is a great risk of abusing these new powers to neuter genuine opposition.

Yet America needs to look south, both for positive and negative lessons from Chavez's experiment, if she wants to survive the current poisonous media climate. Far too many Americans absorb and regurgitate misinformation as absolute fact, oblivious to the insidious nature of those who provide that info. As such, John Edwards was unwittingly correct when he stated that there are "two Americas" - the America that digests news from Fox News and conservative radio, and the America that digests news from the New York Times, Associated Press, and MSNBC.

The blogosphere and other interactive media such as Facebook have been godsends insofar as balance. Typically, a blog is run by an individual or group of individuals who make perfectly clear both where their allegiances lie and that the information they post will be favorable to their personal point of view. The power of new media was most effectively shown last week when Sarah Palin's Facebook post criticizing ObamaCare hijacked the entire media debate with talk of "death panels." With the Senate removing the objectionable language this week, Palin did more, rightly or wrongly, to shape the debate than any politician appearing on television, radio or newspaper, including our passively disengaged President. Other examples of the new media acting as balance include the Dan Rather National Guard controversy in 2004 and the relentless work done on the left to dissect Bush Administration lies over WMDs and terrorist ties in the aftermath of the Iraq War launch.

Unfortunately, the health care debate has shown that the blogosphere, while vitally important, is not reaching enough Americans. Far too many Americans believe Fox News when they claim to be "fair and balanced", just as far too many still hold the New York Times to be the "paper of record". Also, far too much focus is placed on networks and corporations in general, with far too little placed on the individuals working there. By employing Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, MSNBC attempts to blunt criticisms of liberal bias. ABC can run a glowing profile on President Obama with softballs tossed by George Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson one minute while also allowing Jake Tapper to roast Obama's press secretary and air a John Stossel special decrying ObamaCare.

It is not only the individual reporters who require skepticism; it is also the coded language and placement of information that demands examination. Placement of information is the more recognizable of the two: information placed in paragraph 25 is seen as far less valuable than info in paragraph 3, due to the shorter attention span of the Western mind. Far too often in the less nine years, reporters have used this to their advantage, with information critical of Bush's war policy in Afghanistan or global climate change placed near the end of the article. This is readily apparent in the current health care debate, where many believe the Republicans have offered no alternative to ObamaCare. They do - it's just not mentioned anywhere near the top of an article on ObamaCare.

The same is true when using tenses; the difference between an active tense and a passive tense. Let's say that President Obama signs a bill extending health care to the 47 million uninsured Americans. A slight rewording of the headline takes the story in two divergent directions. "Obama Signs Health Care Bill" signals that Obama pressed hard for the bill and that the focus of the story should be on Obama's hard work, culminating in victory. By contrast, "Health Care Bill Signed by Obama" focuses the narrative on the bill itself, implying that Obama had little or nothing to do with the actual construction and passage of the bill. By and large, few pay attention to how a subtle shift in tense can shape a story.

Americans are frustrated and enraged, and many don't concretely know why. They have a general notion - the politicians that should work for them have looked down on them, talked down to them, lied to them . . .

With expanded critical thinking and recognition of bias, Americans will soon realize that the old guard media have done the same.

The Palin Ethics Conspiracy

2009-08-03T13:57:00.003-04:00

Turns out the "independent" ethics filers weren't quite independent...

Some of the links are tenuous, specifically the timeline on Troopergate (the investigation began before Palin was picked to be VP), but the bloggers are caught red-handed.

For Those Late to the Truth Party...

2009-08-01T22:15:00.004-04:00

...confirmation that bin Laden and Taliban members were on the US payroll up to September 11, 2001.

It's important to note that these were mostly indirect contacts, through the Turkish government and intelligence agencies. That means that this is by no means proof of any "inside job", but it is absolute proof that the US government has continued to lie to the American people and suppress pieces of evidence that do not fit into the script.

On a lighter note: that explains why Clinton's missiles were way off the mark in August 1998. Good shooting, boys - that medicine factory had it coming.

Three Wolf Moon in Washington

2009-07-30T13:04:00.002-04:00

Wrapped around an Alaskan free verse of poetry and a scribe against media malpractice Sunday was a Sarah Palin policy speech that defended the Second Amendment and warned against the invading hands of Big Government. Palin specifically ranted against Ashley Judd - the "third least influential Judd", according to The Daily Show - for participating in a PSA designed to raise awareness about the Palin policy of wolf poaching. The selected targeting of wolves from helicopters is designed to artificially inflate the previously low caribou population; ideally, this would restore a natural balance that had tipped too far against Palin's favorite food.

Given Palin's specific warnings, one would not make her out to be a modern Nostradamus. Unfortunately, the Senate is hellbent on doing so.

On Monday, Senators Feinstein of California and Cardin of Maryland introduced the "Protect America's Wildlife Act", a measure specifically designed to ban the culling of wolves by civilians from aerial transport vehicles. State and federal wildlife officials will still be allowed to enforce strict levels of the wolf population.

Whether or not one agrees with the shooting of wolves, one must be concerned about yet another growth of government and yet another limit on civilian liberties. Perhaps this Feinstein and Cardin need a "teachable moment" courtesy of this soldier.

And one also ought to be concerned about Congress' priorities.

In the last week, while Congress was supposed to be working 24/7 on passing sensible reform of our health care system, the following bills have been introduced:

1. This "Protect Wildlife Act" which focuses on limited civilian behavior in Alaska (and only Alaska)
2. A declaration that Hawaii is the birthplace of Barack Obama (the Certificate of Live Birth already produced during the campaign will do just fine, thank you)
3. A resolution demanding that President Obama publicly apologize to a Cambridge police officer (even though Obama's bringing the cop, an O voter, over to the White House to have a beer)

No wonder Congress has held steady at Bush-approval ratings for much of the decade.

*BONUS: Palin's tweets also dramatic poetry:

Sarah Palin's Farewell Poem

2009-07-28T11:23:00.003-04:00

As read by the greatest thespian of our times: William Shatner

Simply marvelous.

George W. Obama, Episode 83

2009-07-22T13:18:00.003-04:00

Remember the secret meetings Dick Cheney had with major energy executives in February 2001? Throughout the Presidency, Cheney fought tooth and nail to keep the names of those executives secret, even though it was revealed that the contents of the meeting revolved around oil fields throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.

Different party, different priorities - replace "Republican" with "Democrat" and "energy" with "health care" and start wondering where the change went...

O and Russia - Best Friends

2009-07-07T16:35:00.004-04:00

In other news, Vladimir Putin admired the President's openness and sincerity.

$hits & Giggles, July 09 Edition

2009-06-29T17:27:00.010-04:00

-$hits to Glenn Beck. On his June 30 broadcast, Beck stated that calling those who voted against their party on cap-&-trade traitors was "over the top" - 24 hours after he called the eight Republicans who voted for it traitors. For someone who loathes the 42nd President, the speed with which Beck contradicts himself and claims he never said what he did is positively Clintonian.

-$hits to Republicans who are outright wishing for another terrorist attack. If Gitmo is to remain open, Michael Shuerer should be thrown in it for this treasonous rhetoric.

-$hits to Senator Stuart Smalley. Thanks to 42% of Minnesota voters for giving a limo to a lame-o.

-Giggles to women with balls, Part 1. Apparently the glass ceiling that was cracked 18 million times last spring was one made of feckless foreign policy based on authoritarian admiration. Thank you, Hillary, for being on the side of the Iranian people.

-Giggles to women with balls, Part 2. It would be easy to miss in the swarm of anonymously sourced articles written by hack writers, but getting ExxonMobil and TransCanada to work together on a massive natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48 is a huge achievement.

-$hits to the White House saving or creating the inverse of 473,000 jobs.

-Giggles to Joseph of Mesopotamia. When pressed for his initial comment on the Shia-Sunni conflict, Biden said, "Obviously Shia's doing better: that Transformers movie made $200 million!"

-Giggles to Mariano Rivera having more RBI in June than David Ortiz had HRs through April and half of May.

-$hits to Ted Danson's pickup lines, not for his delivery of the lines, but because they were so unneccessary for Sam Malone. In retrospect, all he needed to pick up Rebecca on Cheers was a coupon to KFC.

-Giggles to Mark Sanford's Argentine affair proving Sonia Sotomayor correct: A wise Latina with her richness and experience is more likely to reach a better sexual conclusion than her white counterpart.

No truth to the rumor that Sanford's mistress is pregnant. Even less truth to the rumor that the child will be named Lamont.

The Zack Morris Foreign Policy

2009-06-29T13:54:00.013-04:00

President Obama's swift condemnation of the military coup in Honduras yesterday appears puzzling upon first glance, especially when contrasted with the foot-dragging he showed during the Iranian election protests. Conservatives demanded that Obama take a strong vocal stand in support of the Iranian people, ignoring their own statements about bombing and possibly invading Iran over its nuclear program, yet Obama's overcaution led to the Germans, French, and even the Canadians (the Canadians!) denouncing the regime in harsher terms. By contrast, Obama and Hillary Clinton's statements, while not forceful (are Obama's statements on foreign affairs ever forceful, Israel notwithstanding?), were quite sudden.

<---More forceful than Obama

A little background on Honduras: President Manuel Zelaya, an ally of Hugo Chavez, is bound by the Honduran constitution to a single four year term, with a new presidential election scheduled for November. Zelaya, clearly not content with his reforms at this stage, wished to have a non-binding vote to gauge public opinion on the issue; if the vote went well, Zelaya would attempt to reform the constitution. After the Supreme Court ruled that Zelaya's vote was unconstitutional, Zelaya fired the chief of the army and attempted to stack the Supreme Court FDR-style. The military, acting on a court order, sacked Zelaya and put the next in succession, the head of the Congress, in the office temporarily, with the November election proceeding as planned.

Now, acting before a non-binding popular vote was quite rash, and some of the military's behavior during the coup was questionable (forging a resignation note? Really?), but the military acted in accordance with the rule of law and stepped out of the scene once order was restored, which is rare in military coups. Despite this, the Obama Administration worked hard against the coup.

One might wonder how Obama can be so callous and indifferent to the cries of liberty, but one would be wrong. Even more than James Baker and Henry Kissinger's realpolitic, the Obama Administration, outside of forcing Israeli concessions in a desperate attempt to put "Palestinian peace negotiator" on his resume, has adopted what The Q calls The Zack Morris Foreign Policy.

Timeout

As The Q has explained, Barack Obama has four primary objectives as President: to restructure the tax code in a fair and equitable manner, to achieve energy independence and combat global warming, to provide affordable health care to most Americans, and to increase the role of the federal government in every aspect of American life. An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is a fifth goal, but the goal is mainly a backup in case all four original objectives are not achieved, and the goal isn't quite as rewarding as the others (the Sammy Hagar of presidential objectives).

Accept no substitutes --->

With those four goals in mind, as well as the necessary payoffs to cronies (hello, stimulus plan!), everything else that transpires, from North Korean saber rattling to gay marriage, from third trimester abortions to the Iranian nuclear issue, is a needless distraction. Of course, Obama cannot be seen as ignoring these pressing issues, so he favors a dialogue designed to moderate the tone and achieve a superficial common ground. Think back to Obama's Cairo speech, or his words on abortion at Notre Dame - all Obama does is wax poetic about the need for greater understanding and cooperation, with the two extremes being brought together by the modern King Solomon, wise and prudent President and healer.

Obama's responses to Iran and Honduras, and his outreach to Syria and Venezuela, should not be seen through the prism of his Marxist upbringing, but rather through his desire to bring America up to the standards of the world - and keep the rest of the world frozen in time until he's finished.

It's a good thing, though, that Obama has changed his tone on Iran. Here's is the President's most forceful statement on the subject yet:

In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad [...] The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy.

Actually, that came from Obama's predecessor, which brings us back to why Obama is so wrongheaded on his approach to Honduras. While Bush talked the talk on democracy abroad, his Administration, specifically the Dick Cheney wing, sneered at democratic processes and civil liberties at home. Sample question for constitution-loving liberals:

If George Bush, in 2007-8, took concrete steps to end term limits that went against the Constitution, would the US Army be correct to remove him from office, especially at the order of the Supreme Court?

*Note: In our constitution, only Congress can remove the President, but as we know, Nancy Pelosi and her spineless partisans abdicated their moral duty to remove the Constitution shredders from the executive branch between 2001 and 2009. If Bush went further and did away with term limits by way of a popular vote (the same popular vote that discriminated against gay marriages in California), would you support a Supreme Court backed military coup, provided it stepped back and allowed the Obama-McCain election to continue?

The President's Embrace of New Media...

2009-06-24T14:41:00.004-04:00

...and The Revolt of Old Media

President Obama is a revolutionary President, and like many revolutionaries, he is turning his back on his earliest, dearest, and more passionate supporters. Even the President has made light of the fact that the mainstream media has had a slavish devotion to him, putting him somewhere between Sultan and Allah on the "divine right of kings" scale. One knows the mainstream media has completely lost any pretense of objectivity when the one thing it focuses on like a laser beam, hypocrisy and the breaking of promises, is rationalized.

As The Q stated earlier, the media is solidly behind the President because Obama is a symbol of the media's power to shape American culture. Big media, under threat from the popularization of blogs, decided to flex its muscles and anoint a President, choosing someone with an interesting backstory who could win (a John Edwards or Ron Paul could never win) and destroying any serious threats to the candidate (witness the savage attacks on Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin, and the errant bullet that miraculously hit a target, Joe the Plumber). It is no coincidence, then, that the only reasonable criticism of the President's policies have come from the blogosphere, with the right's noise machine pushing Obama into accepting many of the Bush national security policies he soundly rejected during the campaign and the left's noise machine forcing Obama's hand on the public option for health care.

Unfortunately for his broadcasted and published yes-men, the President is an intelligent, hip creature who understands the power of new media. The President has done online townhall meetings, turned the weekly radio address into a weekly YouTube address, and in 2005, when he was a Senator, blogged on Daily Kos during the Roberts and Alito judicial hearings. This appreciation of new media reached a boiling point for his old media supporters yesterday, when he called upon Huffington Post blogger Nico Pitney, who has been the most insightful American reporter in Iran. Pitney channeled a question from the streets of Tehran to the President, which enraged some in the old media. Obama also shut down frequent enemy of humanity Helen Thomas, the ultimate icon of old media influence.

The President's outreach to major online sites like Politico and the Huffington Post is a great development for Americans, no matter which side of the political spectrum one finds him/herself on, for the following reasons:

1. Recognition of Bias - Old media, from the days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, stressed the objectivity of their reporting, even if it was far from it. In the old days, Americans trusted these anchors and papers like the New York Times and Washington Post like gospels. In the age of new media, though, Americans can arrive at fiercely partisan sites like Daily Kos or Michelle Malkin's blog, piece the two opposing sides together as they see fit, and arrive closer to the truth than ever before.

2. Interaction and Production - In the old media format, Americans consumed their news like drones, listening to Cronkite's reports or reading Times articles. This created a hierarchy, where certain individuals appeared more important than others (in this case, Murrow and the Post writers were more important than those who listened to or read them). Now, though, any American, through the blogosphere and video sites like YouTube, can become a scribe or television star.

3. Jilted Lover Syndrome - With Obama's embrace of new media, old media partisans who spread their figurative legs for the President will perhaps turn on him, resulting in intensely negative coverage that rivaled the positive coverage of his first few months. Eventually, the two will reach a state of equilibrium, resulting in the most balanced coverage of the Presidency in almost 20 years.

The amount of time that the media falls in love with a President is directly proportionate to the amount of time the dogs of media will be sicced on him. Bill Clinton received goodwill for most of his first year, but the media turned on him during the health care showdown of 1994. The media began a Clintonian renaissance in time for the 1996 elections, but the relationship turned ugly again when Matt Drudge forced them to report on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The last year and a half of the Presidency finally saw balanced coverage.

The coverage of George W. Bush, by contrast, did not fluctuate nearly as much. Bush was adored for his first term and reviled for his second - it was that open and shut a case. The only difference between political scientists is in determining when the tide turned - Bush supporters claim it was sometime before the 2004 election, while the rest of Americans point to the Hurricane Katrina debacle.

It is humorous, though, to note that, throughout history, revolutionaries swept into power by certain factions immediately turn on those certain factions once in power. The mainstream media acted as Obama's offensive linemen, yet their petty and partisan nature has put them in the grave. It is ironic but satisfying that Obama is the first one to throw dirt on them.