Who Ever Told You That You Could Work With Men?

There is NOT going to be a draft next year you frickin' idiots. So stop forwarding that ridiculous e-mail you ignorant children.

Don't believe me? Read this at Snopes.

Still not enough for ya? Try this from today's Star Tribune:

The warnings contain questionable assertions. For example, they claim that the Selective Service System received an additional $28 million from Congress in fiscal 2004, when there was no funding increase. They also claim that the White House is pushing to get the bills through, when in fact the administration opposes a draft.

Pretty clear. Pretty straightforward ain't it?

Still, the fact that bills exist in the House and Senate was enough to convince Michael LaBrosse, a 57-year-old leadership consultant from Minneapolis, that a draft is coming. After confirming that the bills were real, he said he forwarded the e-mail to more than 100 friends.

"This is about as real a thing as I ever sent out," said LaBrosse. "It makes sense that if there's a bill like that out there under the radar, that there are other people getting ready for it."

And you want to be my leadership consultant? To borrow a few lines from Glengarry Glen Ross:

"You stupid f**ckin' c**t. You, Labrosse, I'm talkin' to you, sh**head. You're f**ckin' sh**. Where did you learn your trade? You stupid f**ckin' c**t. You idiot. Who ever told you that you could work with men?"

Posted by Chad The Elder--Link

When MoveOn Is With You Who Can Be Against You?

From a MoveOn.org e-mail titled "Candidates who need our support":

Finally, in Minnesota's 6th Congressional district, Patty Wetterling has recently emerged as one of the most thoughtful and courageous Congressional candidates of 2004. Since the 1989 abduction of her son Jacob, Patty has been a tireless advocate for missing and exploited children and wants to take her platform of child advocacy to Congress.

Warren, a MoveOn member from St. Cloud, MN, writes: 'Patty Wetterling is a person of great integrity and compassion. Because of her work with missing and exploited children, she has already been instrumental in passing significant national legislation. She is liberal on all the issues that truly matter: ending the war and supporting those who have had to fight it, opposition to the marriage amendment, advocate for public education, strong support for progressive environmental and wilderness legislation, and advocate for working people and a living wage. Patty is smart, tough, but human.'

Her Republican opponent Mark Kennedy is apparently a heartless android.

UPDATE: King wonders how Warren arrived at his conclusions about Wetterling's liberal views on "all the issues that truly matter".

Posted by Chad The Elder--Link

As Long As They're Talking About You It Doesn't Matter What They Say REDUX

Hopefully, K-Lo at National Review Online agrees with that statement.

Posted by Chad The Elder--Link

As Long As They're Talking About You It Doesn't Matter What They Say

A little Monkey told me that we're mentioned in Hugh's new book due out next month. Not bad for a site once described by Mark A. R. Kleiman as "a deservedly obscure blog".

Posted by Chad The Elder--Link

A Red Rider For Osama?

From MSNBC:

A career CIA officer claims in a new book that America is losing the war on terror, in part because of the invasion of Iraq, which, he says, distracted the United States from the war against terrorism and further fueled al-Qaida's struggle against the United States. The author, who writes as "Anonymous", is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and still works for the intelligence agency, which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified information.

Not unexpectedly, the media is playing up this authors opinion that the war with Iraq is a distraction in the fight against Al-Qaida. And, although I still support the decision to invade Iraq, this argument is by far the strongest case against it.

What is not receiving as much attention is the CIA officer's contentions that we are not taking the threat from Al-Qaida seriously enough, that we refuse to acknowledge the true nature of the war, and that we have not pursued it aggressively or violently enough. From an interview (same link as above) with NBC's Andrea Mitchell:

Anonymous: ...I think we are, for various reasons, loath to talk about the role of religion in this war. And it's not to criticize one religion or another, but bin Laden is motivated and his followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion requires them to do. And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve.

On what needs to be done militarily:

Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"

Anonymous: "I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which -- it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived. We've arrived at the point where the only option is military. And quite frankly, in Iraq and in Afghanistan we've applied that military force with a certain daintiness that has not served our interests well.

Fallujah anyone?

Advice to Bush:

Mitchell: "What would you like to tell the president?"

Anonymous: "I would like to tell the president, I think, and, and it's presumptuous of me, but I genuinely think that we have underestimated the scope of the enemy, the dedication of the enemy and the threat that it poses to the United States. I think someone should have gone to the president when the, when the discussion of going to Iraq was broached and have said, Mr. President, this is something that can only help Osama bin Laden. Whatever the danger posed by Saddam, whatever weapons he had, is almost irrelevant in that the boost it would give to al-Qaida was easily seen. And if that message wasn't delivered, then I think there was a mistake made. I also think that Mr. Lincoln's view that one war at a time is plenty is probably a good piece of guidance."

More stick less carrot:

Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"

Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.

"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."

On weighing the costs of inaction:

Mitchell: "Even if it means civilian casualties?"

Anonymous: "That's the way war is. I've never really understood the idea that any American government, any American elected official is responsible for protecting civilians who are not Americans. My experience working against bin Laden was there was multiple occasions when we did not take advantage of an opportunity to solve the problem because we were afraid of killing a civilian, we were afraid of hitting a mosque with shrapnel, we were afraid of disrupting sales of arms overseas. Very seldom in my career have I ever heard anyone ask what happens if we don't do this.

My own opinion is we should err on the side of protecting Americans first. And if we make a mistake in that kind of action, I think the American people will accept that..."

Even though I've excerpted quite a bit of the interview, I still urge you to read the whole thing. You may not agree with all his assertions, but, unlike the silliness that is Fahrenheit 911, at least they are worth debating. Plus anyone who provides a reference like this deserves a chance to be heard:

Anonymous: "If you're familiar with that wonderful Christmas movie, 'A Christmas Story', at the end of the day, Ralphie getting his air rifle even though his mother was worried his eye would get shot out. It's a terrific gift."

Posted by Chad The Elder--Link

Lately I've had an increasing level interest in the 2004 Euro Soccer championships (an interest stoked by the Vox Day reports). This has led me to checking out the FIFA Web site. FIFA stands for the Federation of International Football Associations. In English, that means they're the world governing body for soccer. Didn't know we needed such a body, but we got one. Say what you will about your interest in the sport, but for stats freaks, geography nuts, and political junkies (and crystal meth fiends), I think they may have the best Web site in the world. And all because of this page, the FIFA World Rankings.

I don't know of any other milieu where every nation on Earth is subject to a rigorous, hierarchical ranking scheme. I love it. It tells every person alive exactly where their society stands in this world. To me, that knowledge provides some level of comfort in these uncertain times, even when the context is soccer. Makes we wish somebody would do the same thing with armed forces. I think seeing the USA on top by miles would make all of us all feel justifiably good. Plus, then I could finally prove my theory that Ecuador would fight Canada to an absolute standstill in a ground engagement. Their FIFA rankings, by the way, Ecuador #37 and an appalling #95 for Canada. Let's just hope our northern neighbors never have to run into relative powerhouse Togo (#94) and be thusly humiliated in a public exhibition.

Because even soccer alone is an interesting measure of national health. For example, according to these rankings India (#143) would get its tail kicked by the Faroe Islands (#134). Population of India: 1 billion. Population of The Faroe Islands: 50,000. I realize soccer may not be India's national sport (I think it's cricket or bubble and squeak or something). But when you've got a talent pool roughly 20,000 times greater than your opponent, you ought to be able to find 11 guys who can be a little more competitive.

These rankings also allow you to think about geographically goofy match ups you'd like to see. Like say, the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan (#189) vs. Caribbean island paradise Montserrat (dead last at #212). Wouldn't that be fascinating? Well, wonder no more, because they actually held the match, back in 2002:

Aptly named the "Other Final", the game saw the Caribbean side travel half the way across the world to face Bhutan to determine, as the Montserratians themselves put it, the "worst team in the world".

The game, played in front of 10,000 fans some 2,000 metres above sea level in the Bhutan capital of Thimphu, finished in a 4-0 triumph for the Asians. The two sides then sat down together to watch the "real" Final between Brazil and Germany on TV. They may not be the best team in the world but the boys from Montserrat could certainly claim to be the best losers!

The FIFA ranking is so exhaustive that it includes countries that aren't even countries, and never were countries. Like Palestine (#132). It would be nice if FIFA required that those folks stopped sponsoring terrorism and slaughtering Israeli women and children with human bombs before getting let into the club. But in the club they are, and actively attempting to qualify for the 2006 World Cup in Germany. Sadly, things haven't gone so well for the Pals, who were thrashed 3-0 by Uzbekistan in a recent Asia Zone Group 2 qualifying match.

Call me a dreamer, but I'd like to see the upstart Palestinians play a match against the scrappy Israeli squad (#57). Maybe settle this whole intifada thing on the pitch, as they say. I'm not sure what would happen. Either brotherhood and mutual understanding via the noble crucible of sport or a crazed, bloodthirsty riot. Either way it would be interesting. And either way I suspect the Palestinians would be the losers. (Something tells me they wouldn't be quite as good sports in defeat as Monserattians.)

Speaking of which, yesterday the Elder updated us on his continuing fuedin' and fussin' with the island nations of the world. It all sounds like kind of a mismatch, a successful, savvy, celebrity blogger like the Elder, matching wits with the primitive denizens of various third world backwaters. But as FIFA shows us, sometimes the competition isn't always as it demographically appears to be. Given what the Elder has already faced and vanquished ( #65 Iceland and #114 Singapore), I still like his chances against Trinidad and Tobago (tied for #77 with Zambia). Island-wise, my prediction is he has nothing to worry about until he finally pisses off the Japanese (#23). That should be a war.

Labels: Soccer

Posted by Saint Paul--Link

Prima Donna Alert

Sports writer Jeff Pearlman, of Sports Illustrated, had this to say about the nature of sports talk radio:

It started in Baltimore. Or was it Nashville? I am unsure because, quite frankly, my brain has morphed into a bowl of watery mashed potatoes. That's understandable because over the past six weeks I have exposed it to a toxic influence a million times more potent than crack, LSD, Twinkie goo and Menudo combined.

I should not complain. It was my idea to write a book, and I knew I'd have to promote the damn thing. But when the PR department at HarperCollins presented me with a list of, oh, 80 sports-talk radio interviews, the impending doom made me crank up Hall & Oates real loud. To any scribe with half a brain, sports talk radio is Satan's spawn. It's the home to people nicknamed Mad Dog and Boss and Big Boy; men who believe communication is a synonym for "Scream your head off at the guy from Urbana who thinks the Cubs could actually trade Glendon Rusch for Albert Pujols." Talk radio is generally logic-free. There is little reporting involved. Sports talk hosts usually open the morning newspaper to get their information then pass it on.

Oh, talk radio hosts aren't working hard enough for him? Harsh criticism coming from a sports writer, a profession employing some of the laziest human beings on Earth (Soucheray, Barreiro, Sansevere).

His main complaint is that radio hosts don't read his book before having him on. I can understand his frustration with that a little bit. It would be nice for the interviewer to be familiar enough with the subject matter to ask good questions. (For an example of proper technique, listen to Powerline's Scott Johnson and his insightful interviews with authors every Saturday at 1:00 PM on Northern Alliance Radio, broadcast on AM 1280, the Patriot).

But jeez Louise, this Pearlman thinks so highly of himself (he's a "scribe with half a brain") and demands such rapt attention to his work, yet his book is a historical account of ..... the 1986 New York Mets. Subtitle of his book:

A Season of Brawling, Boozing, Bimbo-chasing, and Championship Baseball with Straw, Doc, Mookie, Nails, The Kid, and the Rest of the 1986 Mets

Cold reality check - outside of those living in Queens, nobody in their right mind (which, come to think of it, excludes those living in Queens) has any interest in reading about this boring, meaningless topic. Not even talk radio hosts want to read it. And the only thing that proves about their intelligence is that they have some.

As opposed to the typical NARN featured author (prominent writers, attempting to educate or influence policy), obscure authors writing fluff about pop culture are lucky to get on the radio at all. Pearlman's attempting to sell a product, nothing more. Any station that puts him on is doing him a favor. Given his ingratitude, it's a favor that will not be extended by 1280 AM any time soon. (With this ban, there goes his sales in the greater Eagan metropolitan area. Take that Pearlman!)

This week's featured NARN author interview will be Karl Zinsmeister. He's the author of the modern military classic "Boots on the Ground: A Month With The 82nd Airborne In The Battle For Iraq" and most recently "Dawn over Baghdad: How the U.S. Military Is Using Bullets and Ballots to Remake Iraq".

So tune in on Saturday, it should be outstanding stuff. Granted, it's not going to be brawling, boozing, and bimbo chasing. But if that's what you're looking for, you can always tune into the Patriot at 11 AM for Rabuse on the Right. (You think you know
boozing, brawling, and bimbo chasing?)

Posted by Saint Paul--Link