It's probably just me, but the game last night between Kentucky and Ohio State has to rate as one of the best NCAA basketball games I've seen in the last ten years.
It had the feel of a championship game--high tension, close scores, furiously contested--though it was just the Round of 16. Both teams had breadth in the quality of their starting fives and top reserves, though not a lot of bench depth. Each had a good mix of freshman talent (now, getting seasoned) and veteran mental toughness.
The defense was excellent--particularly from Kentucky, and from Ohio St.'s freshman point guard Aaron Craft--but there were not a lot of turnovers, a credit to good ball-handling from both teams. Fouls were a big factor, but Kentucky showed a great deal of poise in playing solid defense without fouling through the second half, when most of their players were in some foul trouble.
Finally, a great finish, and the right team won, from my point of view. I will of course pat myself on the back for identifying this game in my tournament preview as a pivotal one (let's not talk about the other one, the never-to-be Louisville-Kansas showdown that should've been happening last night, too).
Kentucky eliminated the #1 team in the tournament, in a game reminiscent of the one in the quarterfinals last year in which it was eliminated, but the Wildcats' work is far from done. Their regional final will be a difficult matchup with a team with some similarities (the height, the freshman talent) which they played early in the year: Kentucky's narrow loss at North Carolina proved a turning point in the Tar heels' second turnaround, from overrated to under-regarded, then to a truly powerful, dangerous squad. I hesitate to predict another Kentucky win: this one took huge mental energy, and they will have little time to recharge, while North Carolina coasted to an easy win over Marquette.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
To Liberate Libya?
Although it is not acknowledged, it is hard to credit any other outcome as the ultimate objective of the U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize "all necessary steps" to protect civilians, and of the beginning of military activities by a coalition, led by France, the U.S., and the U.K., to establish a "no-fly zone" for Qadhafi's air force over Libya.
The actions were defensible and just barely in time to prevent the routing of the rebel forces from their stronghold in Benghazi and a massacre which surely would have followed. Perhaps, not even in time: the immediate response of the Qadhafi regime to the U.N. resolution was to declare a cease-fire, a ruse designed to give his forces time to invest Benghazi in a siege.
It is likely that the initiation of air attacks on Qadhafi's forces may give the rebels a chance to regroup and protect some of their strongholds, maybe even to re-emerge in some of the Western Libyan towns from which they had been brutally driven. It does not seem likely to achieve either a negotiated peace or a comprehensive defeat of Qadhafi forces.
It still falls on the rebels to do most of the work if the country is to be freed of Qadhafi's rule by force of arms, and, barring a new round of defections by loyalist forces, unclear whether they will have the capacity to do so. It is extremely important that the US keep to its pledge not to involve any ground forces (except possibly for rescue operations if any of our planes are shot down); the American public will not support a new, third ground war in a Muslim country, one which has little connection with Al-Qaeda or its allied movements (as with Iraq's Saddam, Libya's Qadhafi and Al-Qaeda have been sworn enemies), and from which the oil production, though significant, is not critical. There are too many parallels with Iraq--both the first and second conflicts there--to feel very comfortable with the initiation of foreign involvement in the hostilities. They include the very vexing problem of what would be done, if there were some sort of national liberation, with Qadhafi's minority of tribal supporters, who are not going to accept defeat and loss of privilege with good grace.
I do support the limited aims announced and intended from the short-term actions, but if reducing civilian casualties is indeed the goal, a standoff and prolonged civil conflict are not going to achieve it. Reducing the degree of intensity of conflict may be achievable in a week or so, then we might redouble our efforts (which I hope have started) to induce some of Qadhafi's protectors to turn on him and kill him in his sleep--followed by a 24-hour notice to his sons to get out of Dodge. This remains the best outcome for this challenging, somewhat ill-considered rebellion.
The actions were defensible and just barely in time to prevent the routing of the rebel forces from their stronghold in Benghazi and a massacre which surely would have followed. Perhaps, not even in time: the immediate response of the Qadhafi regime to the U.N. resolution was to declare a cease-fire, a ruse designed to give his forces time to invest Benghazi in a siege.
It is likely that the initiation of air attacks on Qadhafi's forces may give the rebels a chance to regroup and protect some of their strongholds, maybe even to re-emerge in some of the Western Libyan towns from which they had been brutally driven. It does not seem likely to achieve either a negotiated peace or a comprehensive defeat of Qadhafi forces.
It still falls on the rebels to do most of the work if the country is to be freed of Qadhafi's rule by force of arms, and, barring a new round of defections by loyalist forces, unclear whether they will have the capacity to do so. It is extremely important that the US keep to its pledge not to involve any ground forces (except possibly for rescue operations if any of our planes are shot down); the American public will not support a new, third ground war in a Muslim country, one which has little connection with Al-Qaeda or its allied movements (as with Iraq's Saddam, Libya's Qadhafi and Al-Qaeda have been sworn enemies), and from which the oil production, though significant, is not critical. There are too many parallels with Iraq--both the first and second conflicts there--to feel very comfortable with the initiation of foreign involvement in the hostilities. They include the very vexing problem of what would be done, if there were some sort of national liberation, with Qadhafi's minority of tribal supporters, who are not going to accept defeat and loss of privilege with good grace.
I do support the limited aims announced and intended from the short-term actions, but if reducing civilian casualties is indeed the goal, a standoff and prolonged civil conflict are not going to achieve it. Reducing the degree of intensity of conflict may be achievable in a week or so, then we might redouble our efforts (which I hope have started) to induce some of Qadhafi's protectors to turn on him and kill him in his sleep--followed by a 24-hour notice to his sons to get out of Dodge. This remains the best outcome for this challenging, somewhat ill-considered rebellion.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Bracketing My Thoughts
And Then There Were 64
Tomorrow the NCAA men's basketball tournament will properly begin. I don't mind the four warm-up games that were played Tuesday and Wednesday, an expansion of just three teams. This was supposed to make go away the "bubble" problem--the one the BCS has such a problem with in college football--though it just pushed it from the 34th at-large team to the 37th, or something like that. The problem being, what about the best team not included? and the answer clearly not being "the NIT".
I would've liked to have seen Harvard and St. Mary's as the two, creative inclusions for the extra spots in the play-in at-large games for 11th and 12th seeds somewhere, instead of the roundly criticized VCU and UAB. Really, though, this is not as important as it's been made out--the real problems were in the seedings and the scheduling of the solid teams that would be in any conceivable bracket.
There is a bias in the selection committee, which I would describe as "somewhat Eastern, somewhat Southern, somewhat Big 10, definitely not Kentucky, though". This was also evidenced by the teams getting early-round home-court advantages in Cleveland (Xavier and Ohio St.), Chicago (Notre Dame and Purdue), and Charlotte (most egregiously, Duke and U. of North Carolina), and the "awarding" to U. of Kentucky and U. of Louisville each 4th-seeds (a bit too low, given Kentucky's win of the SEC tournament after a very challenging season schedule, and U. of L.'s fine runner-up performance in the Big East tournament, with the same notation on its schedule difficulty); worse, those #4 seedings line them up to play the tournament's two favorite teams, Ohio St. (for U. of K.) and Kansas (for U. of L.) Those two games, for me, are the pivotal ones in the whole tournament: there aren't too many teams that have legitimate chances against Ohio St. and Kansas, and a win by either Kentucky or Louisville (or better, by both) would throw the tournament wide open.
So, I'm making two classes of picks: one in which one or both of my faves pull the big upset, and "the others" in which chalk rules (I'm going with Kansas in the final between the two tourney favorites, as my experiences watching Ohio St.--especially their game against Northwestern in the Big 10 tourney--have disappointed me somewhat).
Successful NCAA tournament teams are of two kinds, really: the team game with strong defense, good point guards, and clutch foul shooting, and the one which adds to that mix (more or less on the FT's) big men who can score and guards who can get the ball to them. The ordinary class of successful NCAA team is the first kind, and there are several of them in the tournament, and Kansas and Ohio St. seem to be the candidates for the latter (which prevails over the former).
Pittsburgh, Duke, North Carolina, and Florida also (along with Kentucky, Louisville) fit the second class, more or less, and they will be the ones to contest the championship if we can get the big guys--Ohio St.'s Jared Sullinger, Kansas' Morris twins--out of there. There is one other interesting team--perhaps a bit of a throwback to the UNLV Runnin' Rebels of the '80's--from San Diego State, which lost two games all year (both to the Cougars of Jimmer Fredette's BYU), and reminds me of a lower-level NBA team for their athletic, fast, similar-sized, mature players. They are definitely an interesting choice to make the Final Four, which would require beating Duke (which has the easiest schedule to the Elite Eight and seems a sure bet to go that far, and likely farther if their talented, injured player, Kyrie Irving, makes it all the way back).
I see this tournament as having: two top teams, about 8-10 highly competitive teams of similar skill, and relatively few good upset candidates among seeds 9-16. It won't be too interesting until next week when we're down to 16.
Japan Down, Not Out
My deepest sympathies for the Japanese people, victimized as they have been in the past by earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear radiation. I hope that the Japanese will rise from this tragedy in due course; we should be giving them our fullest aid. I would also challenge the peoples of China and Korea--both still harboring grudges, perhaps deservedly, from Japan's aggression in World War II--but both thriving nations in the area (I'm excluding the Pyongyang joke regime in North Korea) which could show unprecedented goodwill and help all the peoples of East Asia rise above the waves of anger, tragedy, and disaster.
Tomorrow the NCAA men's basketball tournament will properly begin. I don't mind the four warm-up games that were played Tuesday and Wednesday, an expansion of just three teams. This was supposed to make go away the "bubble" problem--the one the BCS has such a problem with in college football--though it just pushed it from the 34th at-large team to the 37th, or something like that. The problem being, what about the best team not included? and the answer clearly not being "the NIT".
I would've liked to have seen Harvard and St. Mary's as the two, creative inclusions for the extra spots in the play-in at-large games for 11th and 12th seeds somewhere, instead of the roundly criticized VCU and UAB. Really, though, this is not as important as it's been made out--the real problems were in the seedings and the scheduling of the solid teams that would be in any conceivable bracket.
There is a bias in the selection committee, which I would describe as "somewhat Eastern, somewhat Southern, somewhat Big 10, definitely not Kentucky, though". This was also evidenced by the teams getting early-round home-court advantages in Cleveland (Xavier and Ohio St.), Chicago (Notre Dame and Purdue), and Charlotte (most egregiously, Duke and U. of North Carolina), and the "awarding" to U. of Kentucky and U. of Louisville each 4th-seeds (a bit too low, given Kentucky's win of the SEC tournament after a very challenging season schedule, and U. of L.'s fine runner-up performance in the Big East tournament, with the same notation on its schedule difficulty); worse, those #4 seedings line them up to play the tournament's two favorite teams, Ohio St. (for U. of K.) and Kansas (for U. of L.) Those two games, for me, are the pivotal ones in the whole tournament: there aren't too many teams that have legitimate chances against Ohio St. and Kansas, and a win by either Kentucky or Louisville (or better, by both) would throw the tournament wide open.
So, I'm making two classes of picks: one in which one or both of my faves pull the big upset, and "the others" in which chalk rules (I'm going with Kansas in the final between the two tourney favorites, as my experiences watching Ohio St.--especially their game against Northwestern in the Big 10 tourney--have disappointed me somewhat).
Successful NCAA tournament teams are of two kinds, really: the team game with strong defense, good point guards, and clutch foul shooting, and the one which adds to that mix (more or less on the FT's) big men who can score and guards who can get the ball to them. The ordinary class of successful NCAA team is the first kind, and there are several of them in the tournament, and Kansas and Ohio St. seem to be the candidates for the latter (which prevails over the former).
Pittsburgh, Duke, North Carolina, and Florida also (along with Kentucky, Louisville) fit the second class, more or less, and they will be the ones to contest the championship if we can get the big guys--Ohio St.'s Jared Sullinger, Kansas' Morris twins--out of there. There is one other interesting team--perhaps a bit of a throwback to the UNLV Runnin' Rebels of the '80's--from San Diego State, which lost two games all year (both to the Cougars of Jimmer Fredette's BYU), and reminds me of a lower-level NBA team for their athletic, fast, similar-sized, mature players. They are definitely an interesting choice to make the Final Four, which would require beating Duke (which has the easiest schedule to the Elite Eight and seems a sure bet to go that far, and likely farther if their talented, injured player, Kyrie Irving, makes it all the way back).
I see this tournament as having: two top teams, about 8-10 highly competitive teams of similar skill, and relatively few good upset candidates among seeds 9-16. It won't be too interesting until next week when we're down to 16.
Japan Down, Not Out
My deepest sympathies for the Japanese people, victimized as they have been in the past by earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear radiation. I hope that the Japanese will rise from this tragedy in due course; we should be giving them our fullest aid. I would also challenge the peoples of China and Korea--both still harboring grudges, perhaps deservedly, from Japan's aggression in World War II--but both thriving nations in the area (I'm excluding the Pyongyang joke regime in North Korea) which could show unprecedented goodwill and help all the peoples of East Asia rise above the waves of anger, tragedy, and disaster.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
What I Said
(The self-contradictory statements in much of this are intentional, self-deprecatory irony, and nobody does it better. Whatever it is.)
I've posted it before, quoting the Talking Heads' "Psycho-Killer":
So, as I don't want to repeat myself, I refer you to my prior commments, without further elaboration, on the following topics: What should be done about Libya; my comments on the 2010 movies, before nominations and after the awards; the New Mexico gas crisis--I'm glad to see there is a class action suit now being formed up for those, like us, who did not have pipes break or have to close our business, but were just tremendously inconvenienced; my comments about "The Lightning Revolution" in the Middle East, especially which countries are not good sites for People Power uprisings (Libya among them); and the opinions expressed in my last Political Update.
I'd just add to my prior comments on Wisconsin's mess that the way it ended--with the Republicans ramming the limitations on the public unions through--was the way it had to end, given the Governor's stubborn insistence on refusing to negotiate on that issue, regardless of the falsely argued connection or lack to their budget issue. And, while I hope Walker and his legislative cronies are recalled, I can't see that it is a national issue to which I should contribute: it's up to the residents of Wisconsin to determine whether they want to become one of the states-wrongs "right-to-work" places like most of the South, or not.
...Modified Just Slightly
I must call attention to my last blog posting of the 2001-2010 decade entitled "Best of a Bad Decade", sadly hidden by the chronological scheme this blog uses to organize its archives. I have to underline my praise for David Mitchell (his "Cloud Atlas" is being made into a movie for release this year--I can't imagine how, really, except possibly to focus on the pivotal futuristic episodes in a deteriorating Hawaii Big Island), for the Coen Brothers (I have since expounded a lot more on the quality of "True Grit"), and for Bright Eyes (his new album deserves a proper critique, which I'll do after a few more listens). Let me just add that I might've mentioned some good 2010 musical products from Arcade Fire and the Black Keys in my update from the 2009 9/10 decade review.
In terms of my initial SPBLORG in January, I neglected to give sufficient attention to the emerging big stories: the owner-player battles in the NFL and NBA. I will summarize my views by saying the owners are not to be trusted, that their problems lie in their inability to restrain themselves from offering great contracts to mediocre players and to share revenue properly among themselves, and that I stand prepared to offer extraordinary assistance to either players' union should they strike out on their own and leave these unsympathetic oligarchs behind.
I will close with some transitional comments on college basketball, elaborating on that SPBLORG and anticipating some future posting on the NCAA tournament. As I write, the final tournament championship game is being played and the bracket announcements are due in a couple of hours. I think this is a great time to speculate on what will be, though I am limited in my guesses of something like the Final Four because I don't know which seeds will go to which regions--it's becoming more random all the time. In my previous comments, I rated too highly Texas--a team with great talent but difficulty in recent weeks playing their game--and neglected completely Ohio State, the team which has come through all this as #1 (though they were no more immune to the #1 jinx than all the others, they disappointed the poll participants less frequently, losing only twice and late, to good teams, on the road).
Bracket pickers, and especially bracket contest organizers, will have less time to think and prepare this year because of the added four teams--the so-called bracket busters--which will be playing on Tuesday and Wednesday (there's also, less significantly, another play-in game). A few comments on faves and the opposite of those: Three teams that were "hot" in the late season got comeuppance in the tournaments--North Carolina, which proved that you can come back against some teams all the time, but not all teams all the time; Notre Dame, which narrowly lost to Louisville in the Big East semis just when they seemed to have won a #1 seed; and Florida, decisively handled by Kentucky (which seems to have overcome their tendency to late-game jitters). All three are dangerous, but I'd tend to discount their chances of going all the way. I don't like BYU, which despite the superb play of Jimmer (who eliminated local fave UNM in the MWC semifinals with a 52-point effort), showed themselves far too weak up the middle since they dropped their center for dubious moralistic reasons--they will find a team in the middle rounds strong enough to eliminate them (Ohio St., or practically any Big East or Big 10 or Big 12 team, for that matter, would be examples). On the other hand, I love MWC tourney champion SDSU as a dark-horse pick to win it all, along with Kansas, Pittsburgh, Duke (hate to admit it), and either Kentucky or Louisville (but not both--I see they are likely to be in the same region according to ESPN's "bracketologist").
The conference tournament week is one of the purest events in sports; some of it is desperate bids to make the tournament for teams on the bubble, or completely outside the bubble in smaller conferences; some of it is the simple love of the game, the urge to play, as shown by the eight final teams in the Big East tournament, all of which were pretty much guaranteed tourney spots, but who played their butts off (possibly to the detriment of their future tournament chances)--I'm thinking particularly of Louisville, which looked totally exhausted at the end of their Big East final game, and Connecticut, which somehow did not after winning five games in five days. I was thrilled by the performance of Kemba Walker, my Player of the Year, who re-emerged after superior early-season performance for the week of his life. Good luck in the NBA, Kemba!
I've posted it before, quoting the Talking Heads' "Psycho-Killer":
Said something once; Why say it again?
So, as I don't want to repeat myself, I refer you to my prior commments, without further elaboration, on the following topics: What should be done about Libya; my comments on the 2010 movies, before nominations and after the awards; the New Mexico gas crisis--I'm glad to see there is a class action suit now being formed up for those, like us, who did not have pipes break or have to close our business, but were just tremendously inconvenienced; my comments about "The Lightning Revolution" in the Middle East, especially which countries are not good sites for People Power uprisings (Libya among them); and the opinions expressed in my last Political Update.
I'd just add to my prior comments on Wisconsin's mess that the way it ended--with the Republicans ramming the limitations on the public unions through--was the way it had to end, given the Governor's stubborn insistence on refusing to negotiate on that issue, regardless of the falsely argued connection or lack to their budget issue. And, while I hope Walker and his legislative cronies are recalled, I can't see that it is a national issue to which I should contribute: it's up to the residents of Wisconsin to determine whether they want to become one of the states-wrongs "right-to-work" places like most of the South, or not.
...Modified Just Slightly
I must call attention to my last blog posting of the 2001-2010 decade entitled "Best of a Bad Decade", sadly hidden by the chronological scheme this blog uses to organize its archives. I have to underline my praise for David Mitchell (his "Cloud Atlas" is being made into a movie for release this year--I can't imagine how, really, except possibly to focus on the pivotal futuristic episodes in a deteriorating Hawaii Big Island), for the Coen Brothers (I have since expounded a lot more on the quality of "True Grit"), and for Bright Eyes (his new album deserves a proper critique, which I'll do after a few more listens). Let me just add that I might've mentioned some good 2010 musical products from Arcade Fire and the Black Keys in my update from the 2009 9/10 decade review.
In terms of my initial SPBLORG in January, I neglected to give sufficient attention to the emerging big stories: the owner-player battles in the NFL and NBA. I will summarize my views by saying the owners are not to be trusted, that their problems lie in their inability to restrain themselves from offering great contracts to mediocre players and to share revenue properly among themselves, and that I stand prepared to offer extraordinary assistance to either players' union should they strike out on their own and leave these unsympathetic oligarchs behind.
I will close with some transitional comments on college basketball, elaborating on that SPBLORG and anticipating some future posting on the NCAA tournament. As I write, the final tournament championship game is being played and the bracket announcements are due in a couple of hours. I think this is a great time to speculate on what will be, though I am limited in my guesses of something like the Final Four because I don't know which seeds will go to which regions--it's becoming more random all the time. In my previous comments, I rated too highly Texas--a team with great talent but difficulty in recent weeks playing their game--and neglected completely Ohio State, the team which has come through all this as #1 (though they were no more immune to the #1 jinx than all the others, they disappointed the poll participants less frequently, losing only twice and late, to good teams, on the road).
Bracket pickers, and especially bracket contest organizers, will have less time to think and prepare this year because of the added four teams--the so-called bracket busters--which will be playing on Tuesday and Wednesday (there's also, less significantly, another play-in game). A few comments on faves and the opposite of those: Three teams that were "hot" in the late season got comeuppance in the tournaments--North Carolina, which proved that you can come back against some teams all the time, but not all teams all the time; Notre Dame, which narrowly lost to Louisville in the Big East semis just when they seemed to have won a #1 seed; and Florida, decisively handled by Kentucky (which seems to have overcome their tendency to late-game jitters). All three are dangerous, but I'd tend to discount their chances of going all the way. I don't like BYU, which despite the superb play of Jimmer (who eliminated local fave UNM in the MWC semifinals with a 52-point effort), showed themselves far too weak up the middle since they dropped their center for dubious moralistic reasons--they will find a team in the middle rounds strong enough to eliminate them (Ohio St., or practically any Big East or Big 10 or Big 12 team, for that matter, would be examples). On the other hand, I love MWC tourney champion SDSU as a dark-horse pick to win it all, along with Kansas, Pittsburgh, Duke (hate to admit it), and either Kentucky or Louisville (but not both--I see they are likely to be in the same region according to ESPN's "bracketologist").
The conference tournament week is one of the purest events in sports; some of it is desperate bids to make the tournament for teams on the bubble, or completely outside the bubble in smaller conferences; some of it is the simple love of the game, the urge to play, as shown by the eight final teams in the Big East tournament, all of which were pretty much guaranteed tourney spots, but who played their butts off (possibly to the detriment of their future tournament chances)--I'm thinking particularly of Louisville, which looked totally exhausted at the end of their Big East final game, and Connecticut, which somehow did not after winning five games in five days. I was thrilled by the performance of Kemba Walker, my Player of the Year, who re-emerged after superior early-season performance for the week of his life. Good luck in the NBA, Kemba!
Friday, March 04, 2011
Two Modest Proposals
1) Death to Qadhafi
Spell it any way you want, Muammar's lifespan does not bear prolungation. It's time for him to meet his maker. He deserves death, no doubt about it.
The question is, how? American policy prohibits assassination as an officially-approved action. The CIA has been accused of sponsoring attempts on Castro's life in Cuba, and in return there is some suggestion that Oswald's successful assassination of John F. Kennedy followed...and there's the rub. All kings oppose regicide of all other kings, for very logical reasons.
Ghedafi, though, is a bit different, and there is a way to proceed. This is a man who is ordering airstrikes on his political opponents, who is bringing in foreign mercenaries to fire indiscriminately on his citizens. My recommendation is that one of the human rights agencies--one with balls, if such exist--should offer a reward of $1 million to the person or persons who knocks him off (and can prove it), in the interests of saving many more lives. The CIA has infinite slush funds, and one of their front organizations can make a semi-legitimate "charitable contribution" to the organization in their own sweet time. When Khadafi is knocked off, his sons should be given 24 hours to leave Libya, or else get the same treatment (the citizenry would likely do the job anyway, a la Mussolini or Ceaucescu). Also, the euthanists putting down this rabid dog should be guaranteed safety, or asylum, if they want it.
Barring the quick route, we are looking at a protracted civil battle; the insurgents have enough arms that Gadafi will not be able to re-impose rule over the country, and that is a very, very good thing. The up-and-up route involves the African Union meeting, deciding that Qadafi is endangering security in the continent due to the refugees, the chemical weapons, the genocide, and requesting assistance from the U.N. Security Council. Only then would there be a decent chance that Russia and China--nations opposed on principle to the idea that a government cannot do whatever it wants to its own people--might agree to let the U.N. do something like create a no-fly zone in the liberated east, or a blockade of Tripoli, or authorize Ghedafi's arrest.
2) Death to Khamenei
One of the few things that has given me reason to thank Wiki-Leaks is the report that Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei has terminal cancer. This is good to know, and gives all the world hope that, given the swelling of popular will for liberation in the region, there may yet be hope of ending the regime of clerical-sponsored kleptocracy in Iran.
The key is for Khamenei to disappear before a religious succession plan is put into place, and Khamenei probably has improved that plan's chances for success by suspecting everyone around him. I think we can take our chances with Ahmadinejad; once his religious cover is gone, his political foes will take care of him.
The route to success here is through Khamenei's doctors. All we ask is to relieve his pain, make sure there aren't any heroic efforts to keep prolong his life--no "Generalissimo Franco--still not dead" headlines. There are plenty of ways to reward the doctors who help make it happen.
Spell it any way you want, Muammar's lifespan does not bear prolungation. It's time for him to meet his maker. He deserves death, no doubt about it.
The question is, how? American policy prohibits assassination as an officially-approved action. The CIA has been accused of sponsoring attempts on Castro's life in Cuba, and in return there is some suggestion that Oswald's successful assassination of John F. Kennedy followed...and there's the rub. All kings oppose regicide of all other kings, for very logical reasons.
Ghedafi, though, is a bit different, and there is a way to proceed. This is a man who is ordering airstrikes on his political opponents, who is bringing in foreign mercenaries to fire indiscriminately on his citizens. My recommendation is that one of the human rights agencies--one with balls, if such exist--should offer a reward of $1 million to the person or persons who knocks him off (and can prove it), in the interests of saving many more lives. The CIA has infinite slush funds, and one of their front organizations can make a semi-legitimate "charitable contribution" to the organization in their own sweet time. When Khadafi is knocked off, his sons should be given 24 hours to leave Libya, or else get the same treatment (the citizenry would likely do the job anyway, a la Mussolini or Ceaucescu). Also, the euthanists putting down this rabid dog should be guaranteed safety, or asylum, if they want it.
Barring the quick route, we are looking at a protracted civil battle; the insurgents have enough arms that Gadafi will not be able to re-impose rule over the country, and that is a very, very good thing. The up-and-up route involves the African Union meeting, deciding that Qadafi is endangering security in the continent due to the refugees, the chemical weapons, the genocide, and requesting assistance from the U.N. Security Council. Only then would there be a decent chance that Russia and China--nations opposed on principle to the idea that a government cannot do whatever it wants to its own people--might agree to let the U.N. do something like create a no-fly zone in the liberated east, or a blockade of Tripoli, or authorize Ghedafi's arrest.
2) Death to Khamenei
One of the few things that has given me reason to thank Wiki-Leaks is the report that Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei has terminal cancer. This is good to know, and gives all the world hope that, given the swelling of popular will for liberation in the region, there may yet be hope of ending the regime of clerical-sponsored kleptocracy in Iran.
The key is for Khamenei to disappear before a religious succession plan is put into place, and Khamenei probably has improved that plan's chances for success by suspecting everyone around him. I think we can take our chances with Ahmadinejad; once his religious cover is gone, his political foes will take care of him.
The route to success here is through Khamenei's doctors. All we ask is to relieve his pain, make sure there aren't any heroic efforts to keep prolong his life--no "Generalissimo Franco--still not dead" headlines. There are plenty of ways to reward the doctors who help make it happen.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
BYU: Don't Lets U Be U
B Yu?
The sports world is a-buzz with the "premarital sex scandal" which seems likely to deprive Brigham Young Univ. of its shot at a wide-open NCAA basketball championship.
The facts are pretty simple:
1) BYU's center Brandon Davies was dismissed from the team yesterday for admitting to a violation of the Honor Code that all BYU students are required to sign and observe;
2) BYU then went out and lost a home game to Univ. of New Mexico, 82-64 (and the game wasn't even that close).
Davies has subsequently admitted that his violation was having premarital sex with his girlfriend, though tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, growing facial hair, getting a tattoo, or not going to church regularly would also have been code violations.
I am somewhat conflicted about the "scandal". First, unambiguously, I have to cheer UNM's crushing of BYU; Davies is the second-best player on his team (after probable Player of the Year Jimmer Fredette), but he was the only one providing the team with some legitimate size and strength up front; without him, the Lobos went right at BYU, and the shaken Cougars folded up. UNM needed the win badly, and I don't want it devalued by Davies' departure--this was the #3 team in the country, even if they'd had a stunning player loss.
Second, BYU has announced it's cutting ties with the Mountain West Conference and going to join the West Coast Conference (Gonzaga, Pepperdine, St. Mary's, etc.) for all sports except football (in which it will try to be "the Notre Dame of the West"). Good luck with that last one: after this, all prospects will be fully warned off from the requirements of Control Freak U. Good riddance!
I will give BYU some credit for failing to exhibit the usual hypocrisy shown by colleges when their athletes violate the rules. At the same time, I'd say they showed a lack of proportionality in their punishment of Davies, the team, and ultimately, themselves. I'm going to pretend that the fact Davies is an African-American, and the ugly history BYU's sponsoring religion, the Church of Latter Day Saints (a/k/a the Mormons) has had with the darker-skinned members of our society, have absolutely nothing to do with the harsh punishment given to Davies. I will acknowledge that Davies chose freely to go to BYU and sign the Honor Code and the strictures imposed on matriculants by the religion (is he really a Mormon? Hard to believe...)
I do have to say something about the Mormon religion, though. It may come up again next year when there may well be two Republican Presidential candidates of that persuasion. Respectable journalists are required to "respect" the beliefs of the Mormons; I am not bound by that. The fundamental beliefs of the Mormon religion include things like: angels came to Joseph Smith, showed him hidden gold tablets and "inspired" him to translate them, then took the tablets back, they're all about a lost race of Jews in North America whom Jesus visited after his crucifixion, that divine inspiration (and a relative excess of women) gave inspiration to the Mormon leaders to permit polygamy, then later, when it was necessary to co-exist with the USA, the same divine inspiration told them to end it, that Negroes were shunned and considered an inferior race until the 1970's, and so on. I know what I'm talking about--I've sat through the interminable Mormon pageant presented annually in Palmyra, New York (site of the Joseph Smith miracle) where they act out the whole story. The beliefs basically require credulity of the highest (or lowest) order.
As a design for living, a "business plan", on the other hand, the Mormons have a very workable model. Clean living, lots of fertility (after marriage only, please), and aggressive proselytizing worldwide has allowed the membership of the church to skyrocket. BYU brings that program to its college, and the church subsidizes tuition heavilyl, in return for which they require all their students to stay with the program (though I think they are allowed to attend other churches of their "choice").
Is it a good deal? I'd go with no; I'm all in favor of students choosing to give up various vices, in order to allow them to focus better on their studies, but I'd also argue that "education" means learning about the world they are going to be dumped into after graduation, and that the commitments students make should be revocable, as they live and learn. Dismissal from the university is too much, I've heard far too much about a "snitch" culture that exists at BYU after the "scandal" broke, and dismissal from the team for consensual sex with another adult also seems too much to me. I wish them a high seeding in the tournament, combined with an early exit, and a similar result in the Mountain West Conference's postseason tournament next week.
The sports world is a-buzz with the "premarital sex scandal" which seems likely to deprive Brigham Young Univ. of its shot at a wide-open NCAA basketball championship.
The facts are pretty simple:
1) BYU's center Brandon Davies was dismissed from the team yesterday for admitting to a violation of the Honor Code that all BYU students are required to sign and observe;
2) BYU then went out and lost a home game to Univ. of New Mexico, 82-64 (and the game wasn't even that close).
Davies has subsequently admitted that his violation was having premarital sex with his girlfriend, though tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, growing facial hair, getting a tattoo, or not going to church regularly would also have been code violations.
I am somewhat conflicted about the "scandal". First, unambiguously, I have to cheer UNM's crushing of BYU; Davies is the second-best player on his team (after probable Player of the Year Jimmer Fredette), but he was the only one providing the team with some legitimate size and strength up front; without him, the Lobos went right at BYU, and the shaken Cougars folded up. UNM needed the win badly, and I don't want it devalued by Davies' departure--this was the #3 team in the country, even if they'd had a stunning player loss.
Second, BYU has announced it's cutting ties with the Mountain West Conference and going to join the West Coast Conference (Gonzaga, Pepperdine, St. Mary's, etc.) for all sports except football (in which it will try to be "the Notre Dame of the West"). Good luck with that last one: after this, all prospects will be fully warned off from the requirements of Control Freak U. Good riddance!
I will give BYU some credit for failing to exhibit the usual hypocrisy shown by colleges when their athletes violate the rules. At the same time, I'd say they showed a lack of proportionality in their punishment of Davies, the team, and ultimately, themselves. I'm going to pretend that the fact Davies is an African-American, and the ugly history BYU's sponsoring religion, the Church of Latter Day Saints (a/k/a the Mormons) has had with the darker-skinned members of our society, have absolutely nothing to do with the harsh punishment given to Davies. I will acknowledge that Davies chose freely to go to BYU and sign the Honor Code and the strictures imposed on matriculants by the religion (is he really a Mormon? Hard to believe...)
I do have to say something about the Mormon religion, though. It may come up again next year when there may well be two Republican Presidential candidates of that persuasion. Respectable journalists are required to "respect" the beliefs of the Mormons; I am not bound by that. The fundamental beliefs of the Mormon religion include things like: angels came to Joseph Smith, showed him hidden gold tablets and "inspired" him to translate them, then took the tablets back, they're all about a lost race of Jews in North America whom Jesus visited after his crucifixion, that divine inspiration (and a relative excess of women) gave inspiration to the Mormon leaders to permit polygamy, then later, when it was necessary to co-exist with the USA, the same divine inspiration told them to end it, that Negroes were shunned and considered an inferior race until the 1970's, and so on. I know what I'm talking about--I've sat through the interminable Mormon pageant presented annually in Palmyra, New York (site of the Joseph Smith miracle) where they act out the whole story. The beliefs basically require credulity of the highest (or lowest) order.
As a design for living, a "business plan", on the other hand, the Mormons have a very workable model. Clean living, lots of fertility (after marriage only, please), and aggressive proselytizing worldwide has allowed the membership of the church to skyrocket. BYU brings that program to its college, and the church subsidizes tuition heavilyl, in return for which they require all their students to stay with the program (though I think they are allowed to attend other churches of their "choice").
Is it a good deal? I'd go with no; I'm all in favor of students choosing to give up various vices, in order to allow them to focus better on their studies, but I'd also argue that "education" means learning about the world they are going to be dumped into after graduation, and that the commitments students make should be revocable, as they live and learn. Dismissal from the university is too much, I've heard far too much about a "snitch" culture that exists at BYU after the "scandal" broke, and dismissal from the team for consensual sex with another adult also seems too much to me. I wish them a high seeding in the tournament, combined with an early exit, and a similar result in the Mountain West Conference's postseason tournament next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
