Check this column from Jay Nordlinger on NRO. I really like this guys work (in some small way responsible for this blog). What a plus that he's conservative and from Ann Arbor!
Pay special attention to the comment regarding the UM Political Science Chairman. " Left-wing and stupid, a lethal combination." What a great quote!
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Monday, August 30, 2004
How could you do it, Jason?
I have to admit I was disappointed by Jason Whitlock's most recent ESPN page2 column. Pulling out the race card to explain the American sporting public's complaints about USA basketball? As I stated earlier, I didn't think this team would win a medal, thankfully, I was wrong. Even though most people seem disappointed with a bronze medal, I think we should thank our lucky stars.
But the race card? "The only explanation." Really? Isn't it possible that we didn't think this was a good team? I mean when you're Olympic record is 109-2 (not the Tony Korheiser outrageous, make a point stat, but the real record of the US in Olympic basketball), you have to get upset by losses to Puerto Rico and other non-powerhouse teams, right? This is the same team that was destroyed by Italy in an exhibition game in July. Italy? The American culture is heavily invested in winners. See the New York Yankees, the Los Anegles Lakers, the Dallas Cowboys. We like winners. This basketball team didn't win. They didn't play like winners during the exhibition. I watched some games before and during the Olympics. The team didn't play team defense, they didn't shoot (I'm still baffled by that. The three point line is closer! These guys should have been salivating). They didn't rebound particularly well, and they looked lost on offense 80% of the time. Did I mention the defense was terrible?
Isn't that reason enough not to like them? Just as America likes winners, we still have our problems with race relations. I'm sure people out there took the racist view Mr. Whitlock describes, but "the only explanation"? Hardly.
But the race card? "The only explanation." Really? Isn't it possible that we didn't think this was a good team? I mean when you're Olympic record is 109-2 (not the Tony Korheiser outrageous, make a point stat, but the real record of the US in Olympic basketball), you have to get upset by losses to Puerto Rico and other non-powerhouse teams, right? This is the same team that was destroyed by Italy in an exhibition game in July. Italy? The American culture is heavily invested in winners. See the New York Yankees, the Los Anegles Lakers, the Dallas Cowboys. We like winners. This basketball team didn't win. They didn't play like winners during the exhibition. I watched some games before and during the Olympics. The team didn't play team defense, they didn't shoot (I'm still baffled by that. The three point line is closer! These guys should have been salivating). They didn't rebound particularly well, and they looked lost on offense 80% of the time. Did I mention the defense was terrible?
Isn't that reason enough not to like them? Just as America likes winners, we still have our problems with race relations. I'm sure people out there took the racist view Mr. Whitlock describes, but "the only explanation"? Hardly.
The NCAA made the correct decision.
I'm sick to death of the sports talking heads telling me to feel sorry for Mike Williams. They keep lamenting the fact that he "followed the rules" and the cold and heartless NCAA denied his reinstatement. I was really surprised to hear that Bill Curry also had this same reasoning. Coach, I think you're wrong.
The popular argument is that Williams, upon learning that the NFL had won in the Clarett case, did everything necessary to become an amateur again. He severed ties with his agent, he gave back the money (likely story) and he re-enrolled in classes at USC. See? He wants to be a student-athlete again. He did everything he was supposed to, didn't he?
Uh, not really.
Actually, Mike Williams did NOT follow the rules, and it's shocking to hear all these people that appear to be knowledgeable claim otherwise. The NCAA has delineated steps that players can take to test the NFL draft. These are often called "rules." If Mike Williams had stayed in school at USC, he's permitted to contact agents, NFL personnel experts, NFL coaches and others to help him determine his draft position. If Mike Williams had not taken the money from the agent, he doesn't have to give anything back and he's still eligible to play in the NCAA. I mean if we learned one thing from the Clarett case, it's that you can't take the money if you want to play college ball. Everybody knows that. To claim that he gave the money back is disingenuous, not to mention, impossible to prove.
So, the rules that he could have followed if he wanted to play college football are simple: 1. Continue to go to school and make progress towards your degree. 2. Consult with the necessary professionals and experts to determine your likely draft position (a no-brainer in this case, obviously this guy is going to get drafted in the first round and probably in the first five picks. I'm not even an expert, and I can figure that out). 3. Don't take money from any agents or for endorsements. Following these simple rules would have allowed Mike Williams to maintain his college eligibility when the NFL won the Clarett case (also very likely, if you get even half-way decent legal advice). Mike Williams did NOT follow the rules and therefore, he should not be re-instated.
Maybe you can argue that the NCAA's timing in the release of their decision stinks, but you cannot fault the decision itself.
The popular argument is that Williams, upon learning that the NFL had won in the Clarett case, did everything necessary to become an amateur again. He severed ties with his agent, he gave back the money (likely story) and he re-enrolled in classes at USC. See? He wants to be a student-athlete again. He did everything he was supposed to, didn't he?
Uh, not really.
Actually, Mike Williams did NOT follow the rules, and it's shocking to hear all these people that appear to be knowledgeable claim otherwise. The NCAA has delineated steps that players can take to test the NFL draft. These are often called "rules." If Mike Williams had stayed in school at USC, he's permitted to contact agents, NFL personnel experts, NFL coaches and others to help him determine his draft position. If Mike Williams had not taken the money from the agent, he doesn't have to give anything back and he's still eligible to play in the NCAA. I mean if we learned one thing from the Clarett case, it's that you can't take the money if you want to play college ball. Everybody knows that. To claim that he gave the money back is disingenuous, not to mention, impossible to prove.
So, the rules that he could have followed if he wanted to play college football are simple: 1. Continue to go to school and make progress towards your degree. 2. Consult with the necessary professionals and experts to determine your likely draft position (a no-brainer in this case, obviously this guy is going to get drafted in the first round and probably in the first five picks. I'm not even an expert, and I can figure that out). 3. Don't take money from any agents or for endorsements. Following these simple rules would have allowed Mike Williams to maintain his college eligibility when the NFL won the Clarett case (also very likely, if you get even half-way decent legal advice). Mike Williams did NOT follow the rules and therefore, he should not be re-instated.
Maybe you can argue that the NCAA's timing in the release of their decision stinks, but you cannot fault the decision itself.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Coincidence? I think not.
Here's a quote from a recent Michael Novak article:
Find the full text article here.
The rest of the article deals with the Vietnam aspect to this election. Why wasn't this important in 1992 and 1996? As much as the 9/11 Commission whitewashed the Clinton administration's policies and actions, it's obvious that the planning and implementation took place during that administration. Wouldn't a veteran (Dole?) have been more in tune with this impending crisis? It seems that's what the Democrats of this millennium want us to believe. The hypocrisy of the Democratic party would be laughable if this weren't a serious issue. I can't fathom how the media gave such a pass to Clinton, yet wants to split hairs regarding the qualifications of "war presidents" during this election. At the very least, W served in a military capacity (much the same capacity as many of the troops currently in Iraq).
Even with Kerry's dubious heroics during his four months in Vietnam, I don't doubt the fact that he served and it doesn't lessen the respect I have for him as a veteran. (I am having a hard time reconciling the purpose of the home footage he took, and the apparently distorted facts behind his commendations. Why won't he release those records?). But since the day he returned home, his life speaks volumes. Not the kind of volumes that demonstrate his abbreviated tour of duty transformed him into a preeminent world leader, prepared to handle the domestic and foreign agenda of the United States of America. Why is this issue the centerpiece of his campaign?
Most of the bloggers seem to me to be lawyers, to think clearly, and to have a very sharp eye for conflicting evidence. Most of the mainstream press, perhaps because of their editors, seem hemmed in by blinkers. It frequently startles me to discover how far behind the story they really are. The mystique of the mainstream press has self-destructed.
Find the full text article here.
The rest of the article deals with the Vietnam aspect to this election. Why wasn't this important in 1992 and 1996? As much as the 9/11 Commission whitewashed the Clinton administration's policies and actions, it's obvious that the planning and implementation took place during that administration. Wouldn't a veteran (Dole?) have been more in tune with this impending crisis? It seems that's what the Democrats of this millennium want us to believe. The hypocrisy of the Democratic party would be laughable if this weren't a serious issue. I can't fathom how the media gave such a pass to Clinton, yet wants to split hairs regarding the qualifications of "war presidents" during this election. At the very least, W served in a military capacity (much the same capacity as many of the troops currently in Iraq).
Even with Kerry's dubious heroics during his four months in Vietnam, I don't doubt the fact that he served and it doesn't lessen the respect I have for him as a veteran. (I am having a hard time reconciling the purpose of the home footage he took, and the apparently distorted facts behind his commendations. Why won't he release those records?). But since the day he returned home, his life speaks volumes. Not the kind of volumes that demonstrate his abbreviated tour of duty transformed him into a preeminent world leader, prepared to handle the domestic and foreign agenda of the United States of America. Why is this issue the centerpiece of his campaign?
Monday, August 23, 2004
Stop it! Nothing was "Stolen!"
I'm sick to death of this garbage and it has to stop. The democrats insist on claiming that the 2000 presidential election was "stolen." Continuing this fallacy is detrimental to our government, country, and political progress. The democrats must believe that our system is so unsophisticated, rudimentary and worthless, that an actual presidential election can be swiped like a pair of socks from the local Goodwill. As if the electoral process can be manipulated by some third rate Doug Henning and sleight of hand. Why, those damn Republicans should be sent packing so they don't "steal" another election this year! As if stealing an election is even possible. I suppose Republicans are smart enough to steal one election, but only that one time.
Yet, they keep perpetuating this myth and cheapening our Federal Republic and damaging the very political process they seek to control. Why? Do you want something so bad you're willing to damage it, just so you can control it. It's anathema to their supposed position of caring and sensitivity. Can I draw a convoluted analogy? I love my dog, but do I have to beat him until he's crippled because I can't control him? Whew, that analogy is out there, but I'm seeing the parallels. Remember Martin Lawrence in Boomerang? It's like a pool table is the earth, and the game is not over until the WHITE ball..........Yeah, that's where I am with this ridiculous tripe. (Not that it's important, but a letter from my beloved union leadership is the catalyst for this rant) This type of rhetoric is moving to political process backwards and degrades our country. Check this recent article (the interview with Seif Khadafy)to see what I mean. Khadafy’s kid is an idiot. That line about democracy burns me up. Freakin’ snob. See what the democrats are doing to the greatest country on earth? Half the people think the current administration is illegitimate? We should be shaping our ploughshares into swords. Better yet, our democratic colleagues should demand better from their representatives.
Yet, they keep perpetuating this myth and cheapening our Federal Republic and damaging the very political process they seek to control. Why? Do you want something so bad you're willing to damage it, just so you can control it. It's anathema to their supposed position of caring and sensitivity. Can I draw a convoluted analogy? I love my dog, but do I have to beat him until he's crippled because I can't control him? Whew, that analogy is out there, but I'm seeing the parallels. Remember Martin Lawrence in Boomerang? It's like a pool table is the earth, and the game is not over until the WHITE ball..........Yeah, that's where I am with this ridiculous tripe. (Not that it's important, but a letter from my beloved union leadership is the catalyst for this rant) This type of rhetoric is moving to political process backwards and degrades our country. Check this recent article (the interview with Seif Khadafy)to see what I mean. Khadafy’s kid is an idiot. That line about democracy burns me up. Freakin’ snob. See what the democrats are doing to the greatest country on earth? Half the people think the current administration is illegitimate? We should be shaping our ploughshares into swords. Better yet, our democratic colleagues should demand better from their representatives.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
It's the team AND the coach.
I've never been a Larry Brown fan. I've tried. Since I've been hoodwinked by Tony Kornheiser's charm, and I Tivo PTI, I've tried to believe that Larry Brown is a good guy. I'm not arguing coaching. I think he's one of the best. Even while he was in Philly, I felt sorry for him because he had to deal with Iverson everyday. Don't even get me started on that guy. Uh, yeah, we are talking about practice. It's where championships are won and lost, and every championship team will tell you it's true. See? Now I'm started. If the NBA is left to Allen Iverson and his ilk, the league is in major trouble. Wait a second, the league IS in major trouble. Oh well, no enamel off my teeth. I'll take any college hoops game at any time.
Back to Brown. Check this article ripping him from ESPN.com. ( I'm happy for him that he's won the NBA championship, but I gotta believe the clock is ticking in Detroit. Joe Dumars better start scouting a new coach, and realtors in the Detroit area should begin to solicit Brown.) Now I'm contradicting myself and arguing coaching, because I haven't seen any coaching in these Olympic games. It doesn't seem as if the Olympic team is coached at all. It's almost as if Iverson is running the team. It's Brown's job to get these guys to understand what they have to do to win, and so far I haven't seen it. I can't accept that this team can't win because of its construction. People say we need shooters, but the 3 point line is 3 feet closer, right? That's like a mid-range jumper for all the guys on the team. They should be money. They just look awful, especially on defense. My prediction is that we don't even medal, much less the gold.
Back to Brown. Check this article ripping him from ESPN.com. ( I'm happy for him that he's won the NBA championship, but I gotta believe the clock is ticking in Detroit. Joe Dumars better start scouting a new coach, and realtors in the Detroit area should begin to solicit Brown.) Now I'm contradicting myself and arguing coaching, because I haven't seen any coaching in these Olympic games. It doesn't seem as if the Olympic team is coached at all. It's almost as if Iverson is running the team. It's Brown's job to get these guys to understand what they have to do to win, and so far I haven't seen it. I can't accept that this team can't win because of its construction. People say we need shooters, but the 3 point line is 3 feet closer, right? That's like a mid-range jumper for all the guys on the team. They should be money. They just look awful, especially on defense. My prediction is that we don't even medal, much less the gold.
What's wrong with Sammy?
Is this the end for Sammy Sosa? Did Dusty just move him to 5th in the batting order? Tim Kurkjian said it's the first time he's batted below 4th since 1994. Wow. If the Cubs want to make a run at that wildcard, they're going to need Sammy's bat. Found this article at ESPN.com. Is there something else going on, or is it the decline of skills due to age?
As an aside, I still like the wildcard. This season is very interesting because so many teams still have a chance. Purists probably don't agree, but I think it's the right format. Maybe this year, the Cubs and Red Sox can be wildcard teams with a chance to advance in the postseason. Both teams have pretty deadly rotations for a short series, right? I'll pay closer attention to baseball as the fall approaches because of the wildcard. I guess that's why MLB is using it.
As an aside, I still like the wildcard. This season is very interesting because so many teams still have a chance. Purists probably don't agree, but I think it's the right format. Maybe this year, the Cubs and Red Sox can be wildcard teams with a chance to advance in the postseason. Both teams have pretty deadly rotations for a short series, right? I'll pay closer attention to baseball as the fall approaches because of the wildcard. I guess that's why MLB is using it.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Insightful commentary from the West Coast?
Wonder what this guy's classes are like? Suppose he doesn't spend as much time teaching as chairing. Still, an interesting view..
Find the full article here.
Find the full article here.
Why would USA Today kill this story?
Read this article and give me a legitimate answer. I have the feeling that people that don't make an effort to find this stuff will be left with meager fare from the mainstream press, like USA Today.
It will be interesting to see if plain hatred of Bush can carry this election. I know it didn't work for Clinton, cause man, I hated that guy and he still won a second term. Let's hope the second term trend continues.
It will be interesting to see if plain hatred of Bush can carry this election. I know it didn't work for Clinton, cause man, I hated that guy and he still won a second term. Let's hope the second term trend continues.
Anyone from the Prairie State following this?
Haven't paid much attention to the Illinois senate race, except to make Homer Simpson noises at Jeri Ryan, but was recently asked about this Obama fellow. No real knowledge, but wondering what the locals report? Interesting article here re the GOP choice for the race.
Further commentary on the GOP choice here.
Further commentary on the GOP choice here.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Back from the Northwoods.
Sorry, just got back from vacation. Minnesota in the summertime. Nothing like 42 degrees at night, throw in a little rain, and you've got yourself a party! At least it kept the mosquitos down. Didn't catch a damn thing. Walleye aren't as stupid as they look. Beautiful country. Bald eagles are pretty cool to watch in flight. Didn't see any bear, but I suppose that's a good thing.
It'll take a few days to get back up to speed. Hope all is well out there.
It'll take a few days to get back up to speed. Hope all is well out there.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
The dead horse rises.
Hadn't heard of this guy before, but this article makes me want to read his books. Interesting perspective.
The Clinton segment is hilarious!
You've probably seen this already, but if not, check this out. Good times.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Signs of intelligent legal thought from tsun.
Don't have the cite yet, but just reading up on a decision from the Michigan Supreme Court. Seems that the rights of property owners are making a comeback. The MSC overruled a previous decision that was used throughout the nation in government takings cases (the Poletown case). The new ruling holds that government may not take property from one private owner and give it to another purely for the purpose of economic development. Yea! I'm all for economic development, but taking property from one and giving to another in this fashion and for these reasons smacks of socialism. Developing.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)