|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| The World in Which We LiveToday, world events cause me to start thinking... and that's dangerous because then I do something crazy like write a blog entry. A suicide bomber (who also happened to be a gunman) assassinated former Pakistani Prime Minister Benizar Bhutto. He shot her in the head and neck, and then the coward detonated a bomb that killed about 20 other people. Bhutto had convinced the Pakistani president to hold elections and end military rule. She was leading a democracy movement in Pakistan - a key nation in scourge of international Islamic terrorism. She was also known to staunchly oppose the terrorist regimes that infiltrated the government and military of Pakistan. It was the second suicide attack at a Bhutto event since she had
returned from exile in October, aiming to contest the elections, and
comes amid an unprecedented wave of violence in the country. The
deadliest terror attack in Pakistan's history targetted her homecoming
rally just hours after her return, leaving 139 people dead. After that attack, authorities repeatedly warned her they had information that Islamic militants were trying to kill her. Bhutto, educated at Oxford and Harvard, became the first female
prime minister of a Muslim country when she took the helm in Pakistan
in 1988. Her father, also a Pakistani prime minister, was hanged by the
military in 1979 after being ousted from power. Recalling
how she stood at his grave, the AP reported today, Bhutto once wrote: "At that moment I
pledged to myself that I would not rest until democracy had returned to
Pakistan." She had repeatedly accused President
Musharraf of being dictator and had been campaigning with fierce
criticisms of what she said was his autocratic rule, vowing her
Pakistan People's Party would deliver democracy. She was truly a martyr for the cause of democracy and the fight against Islamo-terror. And her assassination really affected me today. I am left with this disconcerted feeling about the world, and fear that things are destined to get worse before they get better. And it's for this reason I write - and hope to help us all realize where our political priorities ought to be.
There are big things happening right now in the world in which we live: Pakistan is falling into mass violence and riots, perhaps becoming another hotbed for Islamo-terror. The fight in Afghanistan remains fierce and Al Qaeda and the Taliban still press on. Iran pushes buttons. Putin has become a sort of neo-czar in Russia, and has vowed to protect Iran. The Palestinians have elected the terrorist group Hamas to run the government. And then there's Iraq.
The one thing I believe we all can agree on regarding Iraq is that regardless of the successes on the ground, most of the world and most of the United States are viewing the situation through a skeptical eye. The President has not handled criticism well, and I fear is caving to the polls and politicians and media. Whether you think we ought to go big, go long, or go home... we can't allow the world (and most importantly the Islamic world) to see the United States in a position of weakness. That would surely be an open invitation for more 9/11s.
But that position of weakness is precisely where we're headed. The President has checked out, and let the lame duck fly. He's going to spend the next year doing a whole lot of nothing, and trying desperately to be liked before his legacy is all negative. And it's 2008 - an election year. So the candidates are going to spend a whole year criticizing all things American, and particularly the war on terror.
The political types on both sides are going to try to focus voters on issues they think will bring them to the polls - abortion, same sex marriage, and global warming. But if we let these be the issues on which we vote - particularly during the primary season - we could end up with candidates who will be unable to lead on the international front. And unable to win the war against the terrorists.
The three leading Democrats are not in a position to defeat terrorism. Senator Obama is so far left-leaning and loathes the military too much to bring the Reagan-esque strength and pride we need. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton will only do that which is politically expedient, and I again fear giving the appearance of weakness.
If the Republicans nominate someone like Mike Huckabee - the worst kind of Republican: socially ultra conservative and fiscally liberal - they will do so because they have been convinced to fear gays more than terrorists. Could Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani be the leader we need? Or will be also get dragged into putting their campaign priorities on gays, God, and guns?
My advice is never forget where our priorities ought to be. We can disagree over abortion and the environment and taxes and the economy only once we have protected ourselves against the real threat of international terrorism. The Islamo-terrorists have struck time and again: the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the bombings at the embassies in Africa, and of course, 9/11. The assassination of Benizar Bhutto should serve as a stark reminder about the difference between those who love freedom and those who fear it. Those who use violence to gain power, and those who use strength to protect.
I hope we've not been so blinded by the mistakes of the Bush administration that we fail to protect the United States from real threats in the future. The next president must be able to lead with strength and a clear purpose.
| | |
| Bernie is right this time....Don't expect trades to fix Cards' woes ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 05/21/2007
At nine games under .500, the Cardinals (16-25) have posted their worst
record under Tony La Russa since the end of the 1999 season, when they
staggered to a 75-86 finish. At least that '99 team had Mark McGwire
and hit home runs — which, if nothing else, offered a little showtime
to distract us from the bad baseball.
There's little entertainment value in the 2007 Cardinals. They just
completed a brutal trip, losing seven of nine overall, including the
last five. Yes, the offense picked up. Yes, the players seemed to
invest a little more energy in their effort. But the starting rotation
continues to deteriorate; the Cardinals starters' ERA of 5.48 is the
worst in the National League. That ERA is the highest for the St. Louis
starters since the 5.50 ERA during the strike-shortened 1994 season.
Any overall gains made by the lineup are offset by the woeful lack of
production coming from Jim Edmonds and Scott Rolen. The malaise is
stunning; the Cardinals have gotten a .178 batting average, two homers
and 18 RBIs from the No. 4 spot in the lineup, and a .226 average with
one homer and 15 RBIs from the No. 5 hole. And as we saw again in
Sunday's 6-3 loss in Detroit, Edmonds is losing his ball-hawking skills
in center field.
So what to do?
Fans are demanding trades, moves or a roster blow-up. Well, even with
all of these flaws, it's a little too early for that. First-place
Milwaukee has lost seven of 10, and the Brewers are still on a tough
stretch of schedule. The Cardinals, trailing the Brewers by 9 1/2
games, are about to play five series against teams (Pirates, Nationals,
Rockies, Astros and Reds) who were a combined 91-126 through Sunday.
This could be the Cardinals' best, and last, chance for a turnaround —
if indeed such a thing is possible.
For those who want to quit on the season and rip the roster apart
now, I have a few questions: Whom do you trade, and what do you expect
to receive in return? And do you see any saviors at Class AAA Memphis?
If you think a general manager is going to part with a prime prospect
for Kip Wells or Juan Encarnacion and the remaining $10 million on Juan
E's contract, you're loony tunes. And do you really think there's a
market for Edmonds and the $17 million left on his deal?
Some trade possibilities could emerge later. If the Cardinals look to
dump salaries, maybe (and just maybe) they could entice a GM to take a
chance on reviving Rolen. But he's owed about $45 million and has a
no-trade clause. If a contending team loses its closer, perhaps the
Cardinals could move Jason Isringhausen and forgo his 2008 option. (He
can also veto a trade.) There would be some interest in the team's
other relievers, but the return wouldn't be great. And the bullpen has
been the team strength in 2007.
The last thing the Cardinals should do is trade young veterans who have
talent and low salaries (Chris Duncan, Adam Wainwright, Anthony Reyes,
etc.). And please do not sacrifice any of the organization's few
attractive prospects for some short-term fix. That would be insane.
Look, I can't stand watching the way this team plays. I don't like its
personality, either. But making a series of dumb moves isn't going to
revive the Cardinals. I'd like to see manager Tony La Russa try Duncan
in the No. 4 or No. 5 hole. I'd like to see this organization elevate
top prospect Colby Rasmus to Memphis, speed up his timetable and see if
he can be ready for the bigs in 2008; the five-tool outfielder is
tearing it up in AA ball. Later in the season, Memphis outfielder Rick
Ankiel should get an extensive look in St. Louis to see how he fits
into the planning for 2008.
But for the most part, this is the team the Cardinals must field for
the remainder of 2007. There's no easy way out. So save the dynamite
for the offseason. Until then, all you can do is hope they'll play
better. | | |
| Rudy Giuliani is the real fiscal conservative in the 2008 presidential race. That's why I'm endorsinRudy Giuliani is the real fiscal conservative in the 2008 presidential race. That's why I'm endorsing him for president.
Most Americans know that Mr.
Giuliani turned around America's largest city. They know he cut crime
and welfare in half; they know that he improved the quality of life
from Times Square to Coney Island and everywhere in between. And they
witnessed his Churchillian leadership following the terrorist attacks
on 9/11.
Less well known is the mayor's
fiscal record. Nonetheless, conservatives will find it impressive. He
built New York's resurgence not just on fundamental police work, but
also on a foundation of fiscal discipline. He cut taxes and the size of
government and turned an inherited deficit into a multibillion dollar
surplus.
Mr. Giuliani entered office in
1994 with a $2.3 billion budget deficit handed to him by his
predecessor, Mayor David Dinkins. Liberal conventional wisdom held that
the only way to close the gap was to raise taxes while cutting back on
basic city services such as sanitation. The new mayor rejected this
advice--in fact, he famously threw the report recommending tax hikes in
the trash!
Instead, he set out to restore
fiscal discipline to the "ungovernable city"--and achieved results that
Reagan Republicans can applaud.
In his first budget address Mr.
Giuliani explained that he would "cut taxes to attract jobs so our
people can work." While lots of politicians make promises about cutting
taxes Mr. Giuliani delivered, overcoming the initial resistance of the
overwhelmingly Democratic City Council. He ultimately prevailed 23
times, including cuts in sales, personal income, commercial rent and
hotel occupancy taxes. He understood that these taxes were not revenue
producers, but counterproductive job killers.
When he left office after eight
years, New Yorkers had saved over $9 billion, while enjoying their
lowest tax burden in decades. The private sector, which had been
hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs in the years before he took
office, produced over 423,000 new jobs. Meanwhile the unemployment rate
was cut in half. Businesses responded to Mr. Giuliani's reforms by
returning to the center of city life.
So when he talks about his belief
in supply-side economics, its not just theory, it's a plan he has
already succeeded at putting into action. He's seen the results of
supply-side economics first hand--higher revenues from lower taxes.
Controlling government spending is
another pledge often made by politicians. Conservative voters now know
to be skeptical of such claims. But Mr. Giuliani has a record they can
have confidence in. His first budget cut spending for the first time in
the city since the fiscal crisis of the 1970s--and over the course of
his administration he controlled the city's spending while federal
government spending grew by over 40% and average state spending
ballooned by over 60%. Mr. Giuliani always made fiscal discipline a
priority: instructing city commissioners to cut agency budgets even
when the deficits had turned to surpluses.
Mr. Giuliani set out to cut the
size of city government, insisting that New York should live within its
means. New Yorkers saw their quality of life improve with more
effective delivery of services while the bureaucratic ranks were being
thinned by nearly 20,000--a near 20% decrease in city headcount,
excluding police officers and teachers. He increased the number of cops
and teachers because he understood that public safety and quality
education are what we expect in return for our tax dollars, not
partisan job protection or union featherbedding. As mayor, he proved
that government can be smaller and smarter--more efficient and more
effective.
Rudy Giuliani can unite the
Republican Party and restore our traditional claim as the party of
fiscal conservatism. He has already proven he can stand up to liberal
special interest groups and achieve tax cuts, even with a
Democrat-controlled City Council. That's the kind of leadership we need
in Washington. That's the kind of leadership that will inspire the next
generation of the Reagan Revolution. And that's why America's Mayor
should be America's next president. - Steve Forbes
Mr. Forbes is president and CEO of Forbes Inc. and editor in chief of Forbes magazine.
| | |
| Why Mark McGwire Should Be in the Hall of Fame (But Won't Be)Tonight as I was flipping around television, I was reminded of
something very special: the summer of 1998. The other half
was watching "I Love New York" and the national championship football
game was sort of "who cares" to me... but aha!...
on Fox Sports Midwest, they were playing that game from September 1998
when Mark McGwire hit his 62nd home run... making him the (then)
all-time single season home run king.
The summer of 1998 was a great one. I had graduated from high
school, was preparing to start college, and the Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa
home run race was in full swing. And it was fun! And it was
innocent! And it brought my generation of baseball fans back to
baseball. I was at Busch Stadium when Big Mac hit his 500th home
run in 1999 - and truly felt a part of history that day. But in
the years since, our image of Big Mac as Superman has tarnished.
The steroid cloud that hovers over the 1990s hovers heavily over
McGwire. And he hasn't done anything to help that image either.
But tonight, watching the post-game interview with Joe Buck and Mark
McGwire's parents and his son... it was communicated clearly that Big
Mac had carried Major League Baseball on his back during the summer of
1998 - and had done so with unarguable class. Joe Buck seemed
actually moved by McGwire's feat of surpassing Roger Maris' mark.
But today we question. We doubt. We disparage.
And this is all brought back to the front of our minds because this
year Mark McGwire is eligible for balloting for the Baseball Hall of
Fame. And he'll be lucky to get enough votes to stay on next
year's ballot. The mighty have fallen - but for good reason?
Mark McGwire hit 583 home runs during his career with the Oakland A's and St. Louis Cardinals - good enough to make him seventh
on the all-time home run list. Only Frank Robinson, Sammy Sosa,
Willy Mays, Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, and Hank Aaron hit more.
Along with Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire was at the top of the baseball
world during the 1990s. But the sports media are working to help
us all collectively forget the 1990s altogether as the
"performance-enhanced era."
Even so, it's important to remember that Mark McGwire - who may or may
not have used steroids during the 90s - was likely not one of a few
players of his time using these substances. A lot of players did,
and they did so likely because these substances were not banned,
controlled, or tested for by Major League Baseball. Hitters were
juicing. Pitcher were juicing. Hell, probably the bat boys
were juicing.
Does that make it okay? Certainly not. Do I think it
diminishes the accomplishments of the great players of the 1990s?
Not when taken in perspective.
We can't judge Big Mac or the other great players of the 1990s by our
standards of today. We have to judge them by the game as it was
played on the field when they played. The 1990s happened.
We were there. We watched. We were amazed. And when
Mark McGwire played, he did nothing that wasn't allowed at the time by
Major League Baseball.
So when the Baseball Writers cast their ballots for the Hall of Fame,
they should vote for Mark McGwire because he was the best of his
era. They should vote for Mark McGwire because he did things no
other player had done. They should vote for Mark McGwire because
he was a class act. They should vote for Mark McGwire because he
(along with Sammy Sosa, also since disgraced) brought baseball back as
America's pastime. He made it exciting again to fill up the
stadium. To cheer. To memorize stats. To be a
baseball fan.
We can't keep Mark McGwire out for things we can't prove.
It was baseball that allowed all of this to happen. In a sport with
no rules, no testing and no punishment for using the hottest substances
of the day, this was no tiny problem, involving a few obvious home run
trotters. This was the culture inside the game, just as amphetamines
were part of the culture in the 60s and 70s and 80s (and beyond).
It was baseball that allowed all this to go on, and it never
furnished us with any evidence whatsoever of who did what when. So we
hardly know anything concrete about what McGwire may or may not have
done. And that's the truth.
We know how his appearance changed. We know when his numbers
soared. We know he gave some horrible answers to some members of
Congress. We know he has vanished nearly as completely as Amelia
Earhart since he gave those answers.
But in reality, we hardly know anything about what anyone in the sport may or may not have done during those anarchic 1990s.
While perhaps there are very valid arguments why voters did not
check the box next to Mark McGwire's name on their Hall of Fame ballot
this year, I think it's too easy to vote against him. The media
mania has gotten the best of us. But tonight, watching HR #62 all
over again... I remembered why. If the Hall of Fame voters did
the same, they would remember too. And Big Mac would be the Hall
of Famer we all expected he would be.
- BKW
| | |
| Goodbye, "Mid-Major"... Hello, "Non-BCS"Article from the ESPN bball page.
ESPN.com this past weekend, a headline read "Salukis shock Hokies."
Were you shocked by Southern Illinois' 69-64 victory? I wasn't.
Southern Illinois was in the NCAA Tournament last season out of a
very good league. Virginia Tech was not in the NCAA Tournament, and
despite playing some pretty good basketball, was not really even on the
fringe of the Tournament.
So how can it be a shock? The answer is: It can't. We have to stop
calling these games shocks or upsets or surprises. It was not a shock
to see Wichita State beat LSU, it was just a big road win. It may have
been a mild surprise, but it was hardly a shock. The same goes for
Gonzaga beating North Carolina. Were the Heels the favorites? Yes, but
it is insulting to good teams and to the game to keep calling these
games shocks and acting like these are earth-shaking upsets. It is not
a shock to see Butler beat Notre Dame, Indiana, Tennessee and Gonzaga.
It is a mild surprise, but not a shock.
Of course, we beat up Notre Dame for a "bad loss" after the Irish
lost to Butler in the first round of the NIT. How does Notre Dame's
loss to Butler look now? Before we go off and anoint Butler as the
eventual national champion, let's be clear. The Bulldogs have to
successfully navigate the Horizon League just the same way that the big
shots need to navigate their leagues. No team is allowed to rack up
some nonconference wins, and then lose to the middle or bottom teams of
its own league, unless that same courtesy is extended to everyone.
Let's assume that Butler does not win the Horizon League this year.
Butler's résumé likely will list Notre Dame, Indiana, Tennessee and
Gonzaga as "quality" wins. If that is indeed the case, everyone else
should have wins against those teams valued the same way. By the same
token, the most impressive win for Butler this week may just have been
its win over Kent State in double-overtime the day after the NIT final.
That was a really good win, and should be viewed as such.
Basketball is a different game than football. With the advent of
the 3-point shot, it is even harder for the better team to win with
great regularity. Basketball is the game of the upset, and the close
results should give you an indication of how hard it is to win in
today's game. Here are some of the reasons that some of the big shots
can no longer rip through their nonconference slates without a close
shave or a loss or two:
Youth vs. Experience: Most really good mid-majors have juniors and
seniors, and a couple of key players who are fifth-years after
transferring in or redshirting. The really good mid-majors have
experience -- and experience playing together -- and that provides an
important component to the equation. Most majors cannot keep their best
players for four years, let alone five. As freshmen and sophomores,
these players are subject to lapses, no matter how talented they are.
As I have said many times, I will take experience and talent over
superior talent every time. Many of these older players are smarter
because of the minutes they have played at that level, and that often
carries the day when talent is in the same ballpark.
3-point shooting: It has now been almost 20 years since the 3-point
shot has come into college basketball. For the most part, the inclusion
of the 3-pointer has been a good thing. However, not everything about
it has been good. Shooting percentages are down overall, and too many
players not qualified to take the shot are taking it. Players,
especially in practice and warming up, tend to gravitate toward that
line, often to the exclusion of other shots that may be more effective
for them.
The shot, however, has made David more capable of beating Goliath.
Twenty years ago, there were far fewer upsets, largely because you
could not spread out better and more athletic teams because of that
line. Missouri State shot twice as many 3s as Oklahoma State in their
meeting in South Padre Island, and created a chaotic atmosphere because
of it.
Officiating: Every year, there are points of emphasis. The
officials are mandated to watch certain things with greater vigilance
or emphasis. And, every year, this causes a ton of problems for players
and coaches. Of course, all you hear in response is that the players
and coaches need to adjust.
Really? If it is so simple and clear, why do there need to be
points of emphasis? How did such calls get so out of control that they
needed to be emphasized?
The truth is, the rules committee wants the game a certain way, and
the officials have no real say in it. Instead of letting the officials
use their judgment and call the game the way they have been doing it
for years, the committee issues these periodic mandates and that leads
to a lot of strange whistles that disrupt the flow and beauty of the
game.
Basketball is instinctive for the players and for the officials. It
also is physical. I trust our officials to draw the line at an unfair
advantage, not at some arbitrary line that cannot ever be enforced
uniformly. Basketball is the only game in which you can be disqualified
for making a mistake. That means that the way the game is called is
important, and I believe that the officials need to be allowed to use
their judgment.
Because it is still early, on several occasions this season, major
players have had trouble adjusting to the way the game is being called.
From what I have heard and seen, the interpretations of the rules and
points of emphasis seem to suggest that the stronger player will get
punished with foul calls for using his strength. I hope that this irons
itself out. In the meantime, there will be more upsets because of the
adjustment period.
Perception and fear of losing: Because of the way we look at majors
and mid-majors, the mids get to play to win without fear of losing.
There is really no downside to losing for a mid-major. For a major, a
loss to a mid-major follows the team around for the rest of the season,
and the players know it.
If a major loses to a mid-major, the team never hears the end of
it, no matter how good the mid-major is. At the end of a game, some
major players tend to tighten up because they are fearful of losing.
That is not an excuse; it is a fact. If there is really parity, which
so many people seem to suggest, why do we talk so much about upsets?
If certain mid-majors are so good, which several of them are, why
do we call it an upset when they beat a bottom-dweller in a big
conference? If certain mid-majors are so good, why don't they get beat
up when they lose? Until we treat all good teams the same way, and
value wins and losses through the same lens, we will perpetuate this
perception.
Jay Bilas, a college basketball analyst for ESPN, is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.
| | |
|
