| |
|
Friday, November 15, 2002
|
|
Damn...dude can't even sleep without falling behind on the hate.
Let's try to catch up right quick...
- First, I'll handle DDDM, who I thought was actually coming around...
Theories (or, more accurately, hypotheses) are formed based on pieces of information that appear to join together. The hypothesis, once formed, is tested...if it doesn't hold up, it's modified until it does. Then you have a theory. I'm sure Einstein didn't wake up and say "I think energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared." He hypothesized, tested, and came up with his now-famous THEORY. Stinnett likely did the same...formulated a thought based on facts, found more, and reached a conclusion. I'm at an early stage of the same process.
And someone who's been doing their job for six years has earned the right to have "aspiring" removed from the title. Thanks for the show of respect.
- Gays in the military...shit. Couple of things here:
First off, who cares? If a guy enjoys the occasional felch, does it make him any less effective at what he does (unless he's in an anti-felchism unit)? No.
Second, if I was about to get shipped off, I would TRY to get discharged. Damn right. Chris Rock summed it up nice..."I ain't fighting shit...so call me a faggot. I'll be a faggot with two legs..."
- A-Rod played in a homer-happy park and never had to make a meaningful play. I don't think team success is as much of a consideration in baseball, because one player can only do so much...but the Rangers were AWFUL, and A-Rod didn't do anything that counted. Tejada was MONEY, especially when the A's made their big run. He deserves the award (unlike a certain pitching teammate of his).
Gold Glove? These are political every year. Bonds won several despite having a weaker arm than any of us have (Sid Bream what). So I'm not shocked that A-Rod won this...it's a consolation prize. But Vizquel should have a lock on this until proven otherwise, which would have happened this year if Bordick even played 130 games.
- Hey, didn't you used to be Kwame Brown, Monster Breakout Season Guy? Told you, man...it was a week.
- Sermon's single is dope...Sermon's album will almost assuredly be pretty wack.
Mentioned this to Sparxxx the other night...it's funny how a dude can be on a song dissing "Crossover" rappers 10 years ago, then BECOME ONE now...just like most of his peers. If a guy changed up his style (which Sermon did last year) to sell records 10 years ago, he was a sellout and got screamed on by everyone. Now no one is left to do the screaming. It's sad...
-- O
1:01:19 PM 
|
|
AU Gloves...man this shit is like all-star teams, make it once, make a name, force someone to be considerably better than you to take it. Heavyweight titles don't change hands on judges decisions, neither do Gloves. Did Vizquel really give it up?
Vizquel: 1291 innings, 677 chances, .990 FP, 7 e's
A-Rod: 1390 innings 741 chances, .987 FP, 10 e's
This award is not the Ripken kill-your-team iron man award, but you gotta rep most-a-season and 150 is that. Chances don't always mean range, chances mean ground ball pitchers; DP's don't mean shit, they mean your pitchers suck. It's all about who won it last, and did you outperform them? Lower FP, and more E's...I would say A-Rod did not take that Glove from Omar
Bordick...incredible 2/3 of a season...I can't consider him for a season award. How many batter's hit 400 into August. They ain't Teddy Freeze.
...and ferChissakes, your team HAS to be RELEVANT, for you to be VALUABLE.
-- Sweets
12:33:36 PM
|
|
Again, to be fair - I think A-Rod's gold glove was a make up, but his range and arm are WAY better than Bordick's. Also, Bordick missed 45 games - which just opens up the "do you deserve the top awards if you miss a big chunk of the season" deb-hate.His one error is amazing and deserves props, but A-Rod played every game - which translated into 150 more chances, and, yes, 9 more errors. And you'll hate, but this matters - how many times did you see Bordick on SC, compared to A-Rod? Like it or not, amazing plays are part of Gold Gloves, too. I'm not going to say A-Rod didn't deserve it, and I'm not going to say Bordick didn't deserve it.
A-Rod got it as a reach around, and I'll leave it at that.
As for the Bullets, it was the dopest last second play in Washington history -- since Stackhouse's dunk as the buzzer sounded to beat the Lakers by one a week ago. Front on Jordan and Oakley all y'all haters want, but few other power forwards make that play 23 feet from the hoop -- TWICE -- and when Jordan came off of Bryon Russell's screen to the top of the key, the entire LA defense went with him -- which left the lane wide open for Stack to come screaming in off the in bounds pass and dunk for the win -- the ultimate play in ball.
Also -- watch out for a downfall from Sermon (and I'm like the biggest Sermon fan y'all know, so...) but on the Russ Parr morning show live from Orlando a couple weeks ago (don't ask how I caught that), he was all on some "I've found God and am getting into the ministry" and shit.
No rapper that found God has ever gone on to better things. It's the hip-hop version of jumping the shark.
Run -- nope.
Hammer -- it's why he pray. His downfall would've come anyway, but this just signaled it.
Mase -- sucked anyway, but religion got him out the game, for good.
-- Sparxxx
12:30:52 PM
|
|
I have less a problem giving A-Rod the MVP than I do a gold glove. You can make an argument about whether or not the player MUST be on a contender for him to be considered. But to give him a defensive award in a year where another shortstop set a record that won't be broken for years is idiotic. It was a total makeup, bullshucks call. The gold glove at shortstop belongs to Mike Bordick. Period. For the final 108 games of the season, Bordick did not commit one error. ZERO. At shortstop. Yes I'm a homer and follow the Os despite myself. But haters must acknowledge this accomplishment. It's called a "GOLD GLOVE." Not a 'golden badass defensive and offensive season.' Bordick fielded over 200 grounders in a row without a wide throw or a skip or a bobble or a Buckner. That's un-fucking-believable.
Watched both (NCAA) games. Was last night the night where we moved our clocks two weeks ahead? Y'know, like the Great Alaskan Shootout and the Maui Classic type shit? NO?! Just when I begin cramming to understand what this means, I remember that it's all about the dead presidents and the NCAA loopholes--if the colleges can get away with making money off a multitude of preseason games...they will.
Lue is a defensive hawk. Brown is calming down from his great first week and playing like the 20-year old he is, dammit. But the story of the game last night was the final play. Jazz down by three, with 4.5 seconds. Inexplicably, the ball ends up in DeShawn Stevenson's hands outside the arc (Stockton had fouled out & Hornacek was unavailable for a 5-second contract). Even *more* unbelievably, due to a defensive switch, Oakley is guarding Stevenson. WTF? Stevenson dribbles to set up his three. He pulls up for the shot, but before he gets the ball up to his shoulders, Oakley bats the ball away. ALL BALL. Stevenson gets the ball back. He sidesteps Oakley and shoots again. But this time, before he can release the ball Oakley taps it out of his hands AGAIN. It was like a big brother picking on his little brother--or in Oakley's case, a dickhead dad picking on his son. It was beautiful. Wizards win! Wizards win!
-- Rizz
12:26:56 PM
|
|
two "quickies", if you will, hahahaha...
1) anyone who tells their superiors they are gay in the Army is looking to get out. I've had people tell me. One I kicked out, another I just called "bullshit", because I knew it was. These guys (@ DLI) were looking to get out because they knew they'd have to go to war, and they're pussy. So if you don't want to be in, gay or not, fuck you, we don't need you. In part because...
2) the vast majority of US Army Arabic translators speak just that -- straight, by the book, Saudi Arabic. Which, as I discovered firsthand while in Kuwait, is worthless when dealing with Egyptians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Jordanians (nationals that herd camels in Kuwait / Iraq / Saudi) -- probably even Iraqis, definitely Kurds, and DEFINITELY Afghanis, and anyone from Whateveristan. Pashto and Farsi are completely different languages, and that's what's spoken over there. The vast majority of people you'll need to converse with out there in the desert won't speak the Saudi dialect, unless they ARE Saudi, or Kuwaiti citizens (who'll be inside Kuwait City or out of the country when we head over). So there's a good chance these guys wouldn't be as useful as advertised.
-- Sparxxx
12:24:03 PM
|
|
Media assassin was out of the office yesterday, thereby missing my opportunity to actively ignore the screeds profferred by O and the blatantly reasonable rejoinders from DDDM. Reading you guys go off is like reading a transcript of the Homer/Ray Patterson debate.
O) Do we want old man DDDM's finger on the button?
D) What button? What are you talking about?
O) "Huh? What?" He doesn't even know where he is, the old coot.
On to more deb-hate. I'm torn as to whether to focus on the dateline of this AP article or the content. So I'll take the road less traveled and go for substance. The story is a triple threat: It flies in the face of the US Army "rules", the war on terror and a contemporary debate in American culture. Whoo-hoo! Remember that scene in "Stripes" where Murray and Ramis enlist? Recruiter: Are either of you....homosexual? Murray: You mean, flaming? Or... Recruiter: Standard question. Have to ask it. Ramis: No, but we're willing to learn! Murray: Yeah, would they send us someplace special?
The answer, Bill, is "Yes! The Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California!"
Now, I can see that the men in question were stupid. No, not for their 'lifestyle/orientation' but for going against the "don't tell" aspect of US military regulation. Did they think they were MORE valuable than other enlisted men because they were providing a VITAL service in time of "war?" Particularly, because there are NO replacements for them and their skillset?
It's a tough story because, from a non-military guy (with father/brother both vets of foreign wars, mind you), it seems like they *are* more valuable. But if the military can make exceptions and hide personal improprieties higher up the ranks, couldn't they have been flexible on this? Yes, there is more to this story than the details. No doubt there's some animosity or agendas going on (on either group). And one further note: if you're tapping campuses for linguists, you're NOT going to get a bunch of Budweiser-swilling good-ol-boys. All y'all know I got nothing 'gainst those linguists--particularly the cunning linguists, hi-YOO--but it ain't like they're steelworkers or something.
Now to the clip:
Army dismisses gay Arabic linguists - - - - - - - - - - - - By MARGIE MASON Nov. 14, 2002 |
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay. The soldiers' dismissals come at a time when the military is facing a critical shortage of translators and interpreters for the war on terrorism.
Seven of the soldiers were discharged after telling superiors they are gay, and the two others got in trouble when they were caught together after curfew, said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that defends homosexuals in the military. Six were specializing in Arabic, two were studying Korean and one was studying Mandarin Chinese. All were at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, the military's primary language training center. The government has aggressively recruited Arabic speakers since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We face a drastic shortage of linguists, and the direct impact of Arabic speakers is a particular problem," said Donald R. Hamilton, who documented the need for more linguists in a report to Congress as part of the National Commission on Terrorism. One of the discharged linguists said the military's policy on gays is hurting its cause. "It's not a gay-rights issue. I'm arguing military proficiency issues -- they're throwing out good, quality people," said Alastair Gamble, a former Army specialist.
Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe in Tidewater, Va., confirmed the dismissals occurred between October 2001 and September 2002, but declined to comment further on the cases. He said 516 linguists enrolled in the Arabic course this year at the Monterey institute and 365 graduated.
The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy allows gays to serve provided they keep quiet about their sexual orientation. Gamble and former Pfc. Robert Hicks were discovered in Gamble's room during a surprise inspection in April, Gamble said. After their discharges, Gamble and Hicks applied for other federal jobs where they could use their language skills in the war on terrorism, but neither was hired, Gamble said.
-- Rizz
12:10:43 PM
|
|
Of course the terror warnings are crap. (As I noted.) But it's 100% verifiable that the FBI made the warnings -- so should the media just ignore that? No. (And does the fact that they criticize the warnings within the SAME STORY not hold any water with you?) The problem here isn't the media, it's the FBI and the "terror warning system" and all that. And I see you conveniently ignored the other half of the article which contradicted your thesis...
We don't disagree on (or rather, there is substantial proof of) the fundamental support that Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudia Arabia give to terror. But my point that you (as an aspiring journalist) DESPERATELY need an editor has not been refuted. Maybe I should volunteer for the position?
Michael Moore has plenty of credibility...among the "true believers". Another email would be required to delve into the distortions, omissions, and inaccuracies he peddles in support of his causes.
The facts are building against Bush in a similar fashion, and within some reasonable frame of time, they'll fit together in some way (what, for sure, we don't know yet).
** You've pretty much encapsulated your problem with this sentence. Stinnett had a theory, and did investigation to find the necessary facts that backed up that theory. You have it reversed. You have certain isolated facts, and you're casting about madly for SOME theory, ANY theory, that will connect them. When one fails, you jump unhesitatingly to the next. It's the hallmark of the conspiracist.
Hahahahaha... Sorry I'm not keeping up with your dazzling rhetoric, O. I'll try harder. Hahahaha...
-- DDDM
12:04:06 PM
|
|
Some tidbits:
"This Promotion Demeans Us Both" -- the Indianapolis Ice of the IHL (that's hockey) have signed Manute Bol. Yes, THAT Manute Bol (like there could be another). This is particularly sad, since I'm sure Manute is doing this to either a) send more money to the Sudanese freedom fighters, or b) feed all his kids, because he sent all his money to the Sudanese freedom fighters. I know this isn't news by now, but it is hateworthy.
How the fuck does A-Rod not win the MVP? Oh, and nice reach around with the Gold Glove...what a bunch of crap...
Anybody else notice that college ball started last night? If you did, you would have noticed that Carmelo "not Traveiso" Anthony is a total badass, and if he's anything approaching consistent, he's the best player in the Big East right now.
The De-hating of Tyronn Lue: I fully hated when the Wizards signed this dude, but he hustles, he's one of the best on the ball defenders at the point, he knocks down open Js (even from 3), is money from the line, and, bottom line, the Wizards play better with him on the floor. I thought we'd struggle without Chris Whitney, but we haven't. And he allows us to get some of the good things about Larry Hughes (the scoring & penetration) without all of the wild, out of control turnovers.
So, to end, here's what I've been thinking -- with all of this media hating we've done recently, and I realize this is a totally unfeasible concept either way, but, would media be better off not-for-profit? I mean, if we could remove some of the trend towards sensationalizing everything to get eyeballs, would we have more fair, or just lazier, coverage? Hopefully it's obvious that when I say non-profit I DON'T mean government controlled. I looked for some articles yesterday on this concept, but didn't find much. Has this ever been broached, anywhere? What's up?
-- Sparxxx
12:01:17 PM
|
|
Wow...articles on back-to-back days! This one, half of which discusses new "alerts," contains the following oft-repeated gem:
"...several officials said that today's warning was genuine, although they added that there was no intelligence about the time, place or method of any such attack."
This stuff is beyond tired. You tell me journalists have no responsibility to report on stuff that isn't 100 percent verifiable...yet these "terror warnings" get play EVERY TIME. The media has taken EVERYTHING Bush says at face value, despite the fact that he didn't even know who half of these countries WERE two years ago...and probably couldn't locate the nations on a map.
Yes, there are people with Islamic Jihad connections all over the Middle East, of all ethnicities. And yes, Saudi Arabia is the most guilty party. But that doesn't change the fact that all the hijackers were of Egyptian descent. I wasn't saying they were the only guilty party (neither does Rall)...in fact, the crux of my original statement that you selectively pulled apart was that several of our "allies" were major terror sponsors. I didn't get anything wrong...I simply used their nation of origin as the example in that case, not their place of residence. Both are relevant...because we ignore terror links to both. I wouldn't call that "playing fast and loose w/ the facts."
And Michael Moore has plenty of credibility...
Moving on...yes, people can read about our administration's failings. But pay attention to the news (particularly on TV, where most Americans get their "information") and see what gets played where. The Bush-checking stories are not given the same play as the Bush-backing Tales O' Combat. Stories about our desperate, and thus far, futile, search to come up with a reason to attack Iraq get far more attention than stories about the happenings in Afghanistan...and most pipeline stories (like the one you fed me yesterday) make little to no mention of the US or Bush, as if we aren't involved in the oil business there.
And I'm not "trying to gratuitiously link yourself with Stinnett." I'm linking FDR to Bush. Please follow the bouncing ball here...I know it's tough...
Stinnett's book very carefully details the facts surrounding FDR...he provoked the Japanese with an embargo, had knowledge that an attack was coming, and left Pearl Harbor defenseless against it to get isolationist America to back an attack on Hitler.
The facts are building against Bush in a similar fashion, and within some reasonable frame of time, they'll fit together in some way (what, for sure, we don't know yet). My point was that Stinnett had near-bulletproof evidence against FDR, and the majority still dismissed his findings without a second thought. Most people are doing the same with Bush, no matter how much evidence is compiled. I'm not saying there's enough yet to damn the current administration, but there's at least enough to make you wonder. Yet very few are even wondering.
Once you build a man up in people's eyes, as was the case with FDR and is becoming the case with Dumbya, it's very hard to tarnish that reputation in the eyes of the majority. Since coverage has been very lopsided in Bush's favor, the stuff that goes against him is often dismissed very easily. That's how people like me who question this stuff get the "conspiracy theorist" label.
My rantings aren't quite on the level of true "theories" because they haven't been all the way through the scientific method. Call them "conspiracy hypotheses"...they're still very much works in progress, and the more information that slowly comes my way, the closer I can come to building a credible theory. But the foundation IS in place.
It took Stinnett over 50 years. I could at least use two before you fully blow my words off.
-- O
1:56:36 AM
|
|
DDDM...the Times article doesn't really say all that much.
Here's a notable paragraph:
"Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, charged that the Bush administration had been distracted from the fight against terrorism by the preparation for a possible invasion of Iraq. 'They are so focused on Iraq that they aren't paying adequate attention to the war on terror,' he said in an interview."
Your claim that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. This is true in the sense that they had Saudi PASSPORTS, but, as Rall pointed out (told you should have read the whole thing), all were of Egyptian origin.
** So there's an Egyptian connection? Shocking! There's an entire Muslim world connection! But I skimmed Rall's remaining pages, and I don't think he brings up what to me is the salient point -- there are people with Islamic Jihad connections all over the Middle East, of all ethnicities. But they overwhelmingly picked Saudis because it was significantly easier to get visas to enter the U.S. from Saudi Arabia than from anywhere else. Thus their NATIONALITY is a very crucial point, and you got it wrong. Overall, my larger point was that you play fast and loose w/ the facts (a la Michael Moore), and that impeaches your credibility and dissuades people who aren't already "true believers" from listening to you.
There's no denying that Bush has, if nothing else, leveraged the hell out of the WTC attacks for his own political gain.
** Who's denying it? You are the king of the straw men, O'Leary. Everyone knows he's done it. 99 out of 100 politicians would do the same (and the 1 who wouldn't is either a saint or an idiot). The Democrats are wildly jealous -- witness their "well, he's a wartime president" resignation after the elections.
Not even YOU can tell me coverage of Bush and his "wars" has been balanced throughout.
** "Balanced" by what? Anyone can read about the U.S. flip-flopping on the Taliban; the explicit role of oil and gas in our decisions; the continuing losses we're suffering at the hands of terrorists (Moscow, Bali, the French tanker, the U.S. diplomat in Jordan, etc.); the failure to get bin Laden (and his taunting); the useless, amorphous "terror warnings" from the FBI; the anti-U.S. protests in Europe and elsewhere; the principled opposition by some House Democrats to the Iraq resolution. Should I go on? Or do you mean "balanced" by conspiratorial mutterings?
I've made reference to FDR and Pearl Harbor before. Stinnett's book, however thoroughly researched over decades and however well-supported his facts were...
** (I haven't read the book, but I'll go on the assumption that he proves his case.) Don't try to gratuitiously link yourself with Stinnett. You specifically rejected being an "investigative journalist" a few emails ago. Stinnett investigated. He dug up new FACTS and used them to prove a case. When/if you start doing that, I'll give you a more sympathetic ear...
-- DDDM
1:29:19 AM
|
|
Okay...looks like we're finishing the week off with a bang here...
DDDM...the Times article doesn't really say all that much. Bush is hardly mentioned, and Daschle's post-nyneleven portrait was painted in a way that took away most of his credibility nationwide. It's largely a puff piece...everyone already figured bin Laden for alive...it's just that no one seems prompted to care.
Your claim that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. This is true in the sense that they had Saudi PASSPORTS, but, as Rall pointed out (told you should have read the whole thing), all were of Egyptian origin.
I'll save you the trouble of going back...here it is:
"Insofar as we know, no group has yet claimed responsibility for the destruction of the World Trade Center and the murders of 3,000 Americans...Although Secretary of State Colin Powell and some Pakistani officials initially promised to present proof that the attacks had been planned and carried out by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization, the closest solid evidence of culpability materialized after the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan...a video cassette showing bin Laden discussing his foreknowledge -- hardly the same as direct responsibility -- of the strikes against New York and Washington...
"While bin Laden may have funded some or all of the attack, another organization probably conceived of the plan, recruited its operatives and gave the signal to go ahead...Although 15 of the 19 hijackers possessed Saudi passports, the common link between Mohammad Atta and his partners was their Egyptian ethnicity--and membership in Islamic Jihad -- an Egyptian group responsible for the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat...Islamic Jihad, based in Egypt, probably carried out 9-11.
"Islamic Jihad is led by Ayman Zawahri, who is thought to have been bin Laden's right-hand man in Afghanistan. Many of its members belong to Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, the countries most closely associated with the origin, political support and funding for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks are, respectively, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan... bombing Afghanistan was like bombing Yale to get even with George W. Bush; the alumni had already left. And even killing Osama bin Laden -- though the U.S. made little serious effort to do so -- would not have brought justice or vengeance to those who conceived and carried out 9-11."
There's a lot more there (try part four)...but this should be enough to show that a) while I am a sloppy "researcher", I'm less sloppy than you think; and b) there is plenty of information available, but we're not always getting it from the major US media in the dosage that we should.
You say that I "simply can't seem to accept the idea that most people either (a) don't care, or (b) have looked at the same facts as you and come to very different and less sinister conclusions." Yet a) is exactly the main problem...the mass media doesn't care, and so they spin the "facts" (or in some cases -- agghlmphIraqhrplglmph -- blatant lies) to fit what they consider "newsworthy." Yes, the facts I present have been mentioned in mainstream outlets. But they are usually either buried in stories, diluted to seem like asides, tossed out in a "one conspiracy theory says..." manner, or, more often than not, just flat out omitted. Not even YOU can tell me coverage of Bush and his "wars" has been balanced throughout.
You say I've at least gotten you to open your eyes a little bit...and that means that yes, I have at least started to accomplish what I hoped.
Yes, I tend to exaggerate for effect sometimes, and it's obviously forced you to take me less seriously. Perhaps the facts don't piece together like I think they do. But...you have to at least acknowledge the possibility that they COULD.
I've made reference to FDR and Pearl Harbor before. Stinnett's book, however thoroughly researched over decades and however well-supported his facts were, has been dismissed by people who can't BELIEVE that our president would do such a thing.
Yet we've seen it happen before. MAYBE we didn't have foreknowledge of nyneleven...but there is enough evidence and enough evasive speech from the administration to back up an opinion that MAYBE we did know, and we let it go. There's no denying that Bush has, if nothing else, leveraged the hell out of the WTC attacks for his own political gain.
People have seen the worst in politicians before, and we've seen them try to duck and cover. This could potentially be Bush's Chappaquiddick and Vietnam all rolled in to one big imperialist ball.
Everyone spins facts differently...for every study that says one thing, another study says the opposite. Maybe you look at the facts I present and see a more innocent explanation.
But when someone is shady enough to do everything Bush has done in his lifetime (stealing an election, among other things), I refuse to put it past him and his cronies. Maybe the links will surface and I'll have indisputable proof. Maybe that'll never happen. Either way, I'm sticking to my guns (how ironic)...something unsavory is going on here...more than we're being told about. And sooner or later, we'll all get to see it.
Not that the media will help at all.
(Rizz...I'd love to get some input on the coverage side of this...little help, yo?)
Let the assault on me continue...hopefully this "war" turns out to be just like us...all talk.
-- O
12:01:30 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2002 Ryan O'Leary.
Last update: 12/1/2002; 1:27:13 AM.
|
|
|
