Link: http://www.zod2008.com/

No more of those business-as-usual politicians...here's the real guy for the 2008 election!

Link: http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/10/hackett.html

The above article explains how the Dems are currently in the process of screwing up their candidate selection process yet again. This time they are pissing off Paul Hackett, who only narrowly failed to win election recently in Ohio’s Second District, capturing 48% of the vote in a state where John Kerry only polled 36%.
Now it appears that Hackett is being asked to surrender his plan to run for the Senate in Ohio in 2006 because another leading Democrat wants to run.
So let me see if I understand this correctly...a candidate who nearly won a special election, demonstrating better appeal than the party's Presidential election candidate, is being asked to get out of the picture so that a prevaricating time-server can have a go?
This, dear readers, is an example of why I currently despair of the ability of the Democratic party to mount any sort of comeback against the Republicans at local and state level. It seems that when it comes to deciding on candidates, the process is dominated by senior Democrats who would rather be "right" (where right means adhering to old-fashioned principles like Buggins' Turn) than effective.
In the current climate, effective politics is about winning elections. I see limited evidence that the Dems care enough about winning elections to make the right decisions.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001582.html

...in which Michael L. Weinstein, a graduate of the Air Force Academy, filed a lawsuit after discovering that internally published guidelines permitted and even encouraged religious proselytizing. Here's a quote from the article about the document's contents:

The document was circulated at the Air Force Chaplain School until eight weeks ago. It was a "code of ethics" for chaplains that included the statement "I will not proselytize from other religious bodies, but I retain the right to evangelize those who are not affiliated."

What I find most interesting are the reactions of representatives of the evangelizers. Here are two quotes:

"Mikey Weinstein might not like it, but it is the job of an evangelical Christian chaplain to evangelize," said Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for the Colorado-based Focus on the Family. "It's protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion."

Resnicoff said the "amazing, positive thing that people are missing" about the NCMAF code of ethics is that "even the most evangelical chaplains are agreeing not to try to change the religion of a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu -- anyone who has a religious faith."

Let's see what these folks are saying:

1. Evangelism is protected by the First Amendment
2. Anybody who has a religious faith will not be targetted by evangelical chaplains

I would question the blanekt assertion that evangelism is protected by the First Amendment. Here's the text of that amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is evangelism covered by the phrase "the free exercise thereof"? Evangelism goes beyond the free personal exercise of religion. Not only are you exercising our religion, you are going out of your way to persuade others to join in. This is a grey area to me.
I would asser a right not to listen to any such evangelizing.
Which brings me onto a rhetorical question related to (2)...does this mean that they regard it as OK to target people without a a religious faith?
I have some news for these folks. I am an agnostic/atheist. I do not want to be "targetted" by any evangelist, whether they are pushing religion, hair restoration, penis enlargement or whatever. This is intrusion marketing, which I find unacceptable.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and as far as I am concerned, for it to mean anything in the context of a secular democracy, it also guarantees freedom from religion for those of us who do not have a theistic belief system.

I will conclude with the most powerful comment in the article, from Weinstein himself:

"They say the bad guys we're fighting, the jihadists, represent a theocratic, fascistic movement," Weinstein said. "If the United States Air Force, probably the most technologically lethal organization ever assembled by man, has a policy of evangelizing 'the unchurched,' you tell me how that makes us look."

Here are my thoughts:

1. Philadephia-Dallas
I sometimes don't start watching games at the start. Many NFL games start with both sides going 3-and-out, often for more than one series, as the two teams feel each other out. My mistake in this game. When I switched on, Dallas was already up 14-0.
The Cowboys appear to be getting into their stride. They are now playing classic ball-control offense, based on a running foundation with the occasional deadly down-the-field strike. Some teams start the season about the same as they finish it, others regress, and some teams improve. The Cowboys seem to be in the latter category right now. Despite his lack of mobility, Drew Bledsoe is showing that if he has a good O-line to allow him to get the ball out, he can be effective.
I think that Donovan McNabb is really hurting. He seemed to slow down badly in the third quarter, and the Eagles were right to pull him in favour of Koy Detmer.
This is one of the situations I write about frequently where Andy Reid and the Eagles staff may need to protect McNabb from himself and insist that he undergoes surgery. He will be out for 6 weeks, but he is clearly hobbled and hurting right now. Better that he returns properly fit for December than have him suffer for the remainder of the regular season, and then possibly be compromised in the playoffs. I really would like somebody to save us from the possibility of another Terrell Owens rant about McNabb fizzling out in the fourth quarter....

2. Lions-Ravens
Baltimore is lost in a fog right now. 20+ penalties and an anemic, spluttering offense isn't going to win you many games. Ray Lewis does not seem to be the force that he was 2-3 seasons ago. He is no longer everywhere on the field.
The saddest sight of all was watching Shawn Bryson's 77-yard touchdown run for the Lions. I saw a Ravens player who looked like a lumbering linebacker trying and failing to catch Bryson, and then realized that I was looking at Deion Sanders.
Somebody needs to go down on the touchline and tell Deion "time's up". In his prime, Sanders would have caught Bryson in a few yards. Clearly he has either not heard of the "one fight too many" syndrome, or like many people who suffer from hubris, he does not think it yet applies to him.

3. Dolphins-Bills
The Bills were handed any number of early Christmas presents by Miami on Sunday, in the form of a slew of defensive penalties that handed the opponents first down after first down. Add to that the presence of Kelly Holcomb, who looked as calm as J.P. Losman has been looking jittery, and the Bills win was assured.
Holcomb is a good quarterback, but as has been pointed out, he has never managed to stay healthy for an entire season, so the Bills had better keep him protected. Losman loafed around on the sideline looking frustrated, as he might. However, he needs to study the game film and try to understand how Holcomb manages games and gives the O-line confidence. The lobbying by Eric Moulds for Holcomb to play may have been reflective of a wider O-line sentiment that right now Losman is not fully equipped to lead this team. It still doesn't help Buffalo to properly evaluate Losman if he stands holding a clipboard, but the Bills needed this win badly.

4. Steelers-Chargers
Pittsburgh eked out a win over the Chargers on Monday night mainly by playing stout defense against the run and the pass. "The Bus" is back rumbling, and as John Madden and Al Michaels noted, he is better in Red Zone situations than anywhere else on the field. Handing him the ball in short-yardage situations near the goal line is pretty much a guarantee of 6 points on the board.
Drew Brees looked oddly subdued for most of this game, and I wonder if the Chargers might be tempted to uncork Philip Rivers, especially given Rivers' recent rumblings that either he starts or he wants a trade.
With Ben Roethlisberger suffering a knee injury at the end of the game, the Steelers are suddenly looking like geniuses for having 2 good backup quarterbacks in Tommy Maddox and Charlie Batch. A lot of clubs (Exhibit A -Chicago, Exhibit B - Detroit) would kill for that kind of depth at quaterback right now.

Link: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8952293

...is as interesting as ever, especially for the item about the, er, fiscal elasicity of the US houses of representation...

Link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/zirin

When Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan, he became (for a brief period of time) an iconic poster child for honest American selflessness and sacrifice on active military duty.
However, those of us who have read "Animal Farm" are all too familiar with false eulogies. This article shows how the US military's failure to tell the truth about Tillman's tragic death, and the blatant exploitation of his death for political and militaristic purposes, has led his family to start asking some serious questions about the motives and probity that led to his post-death veneration.

...when it comes to Chad Pennington's medical status. Here is a statement from a New York media website that just about sums it up:

The Jets have been less than forthcoming about Pennington's injuries. Early this year, when he had the initial surgery on the shoulder, it was called a "surgical procedure," and the extent of the surgery did not come out until months later. Edwards yesterday was reluctant to talk about the injury, deferring to the doctors and Pennington.

Basically, if I was a journalist interviewing any member of the Jets' staff about Chad Pennington, I would have trouble believing a single word they told me. The Jets have next to no credibility left on this subject, because they seem to have made the fatal mistake of attempting to bullshit the media last year when Pennington was first injured, instead of merely declining comment.
You didn't need a doctorate in football mechanics to see that Chad Pennington was showing all of the classic symptoms of a shoulder/rotator cuff injury at the end of last season. Many of his passes lacked velocity and depth, and his demeanour showed all of the signs of a brave and determined athlete struggling with a significant injury to his throwing shoulder. I suspect that Chad was hurting more than he ever let on, and his decision to try and play through the injury shows the guy's fundamental level of determination. Rotator cuff injuries are just about the worst type of injury that any athelete throwing for a living can suffer. Yet the Jets declined to own up to this reality.
With hindsight, the Jets would have been better-advised to put him on IR and get the shoulder operated on immediately if they already knew he had a damaged rotator cuff - you cannot rehab a significantly damaged one and play normally if you're an NFL quarterback.
One of the more awkward jobs of a coaching and medical staff in this situation is to protect players from themselves. In the NFL environment, it is almost taken for granted that you will play and compete whie injured. However, there is a limit to this indulgence of basic human competitiveness, usually when a player is risking permanent damage to his body and career, or when it is not in the long-term interests of the club to have the player continuing to play through the injury. The Jets invested a lot of money in Pennington, and by allowing him to play out the seaon, they were merely postponing inevitable shoulder surgery, which in turn postponed his recovery in time for following season. I believe that the Jets should have pulled Pennington and put him on IR if they really knew the full extent of his injury.
I am not ruling out the possibility that Pennington himself concealed the full extent of his injury from the Jets at the end of last season. I hope he didn't because if he did, the Jets will be less inclined to wait out his recovery period from his latest surgery. They may decide to cut their losses and go in another direction at quarterback.
The real issue came when the Jets proceeded to BS the media about the extent and severity of the off-season surgery that Pennington underwent to fix his shoulder.

This whole mess is an example of what should be called Martha Stewart Syndrome - Stewart was jailed not for insider trading, but for lying to a Federal investigator, which is itself a felony.

I have a lot of time for Paul Stoddart. He alone of the current generation of Formula 1 team owners seems to have (a) a sense of humour, (b) a sense of perspective, and (c) the ability to call it as he sees it. Frankly, every time I watch Stoddart talking, he reminds me of how deeply inauthentic, self-absorbed and pompuous most of the other F1 leaders really are most of the time that they are on public view.
So, I have mixed feelings about Stoddart's imminent departure from Formula 1, now that Minardi has been sold to Red Bull. He kept Minardi going for several seasons, paid off the team's debts, and along the way ran interference for the manufacturer faction in Formula 1. He has (by all accounts) the best working knowledge of the Concorde Agreement of any team principal. The bad news is that Minardi has been solidly uncompetitive for years, and was not looking likely to move up the grid any time soon prior to its sale to Red Bull.
However, I find Stoddart's comments recently about a breakaway series interesting, and events this week are reinforcing his comments in my mind. The probability that a new Formula 1 team, using Honda V8 engines, will be competing next year is intruiging, not only because such a team faces enormous practical challenges just to put 2 cars on the grid at the first race of 2006, but because what it means for the constantly-changing mathematics of "who is in which camp".
Let's review:

Ferrari has already committed to run under FIA governance and a new version of the Concorde Agreement (whatever that new version is called) after 2008
Red Bull will be using Ferrari engines from 2006 onwards, and is already reckoned to be in the FIA camp
Red Bull/Minardi/Whatever Name They Use will probably vote the same way as Red Bull

So..that makes 3 teams in the FIA camp.

Williams GP, having lost BMW and now using Cosworth power for 2006, is currently "in the middle".

Now let's look at the manufacturer faction:

Toyota is a key member
Mercedes is a key member
Honda was wavering, but now is a key member
Renault is a key member
BMW now owns Sauber, and is a key member

Midland-Jordan is supplied by Toyota
Williams GP may be supplied by Toyota from 2007 onwards
Honda may set up a second team from 2006 onwards

Even if we allow for the possibility that Midland will not be supplied by Toyota after 2006 (the engine supply going to Williams?) my arithmetic shows that the manufacturer camp will have 7 teams from 2007 onwards - a total of 14 cars.
Now...if Renault, Mercedes and BMW were to supply second teams like the other manufacturers, they would have a total of 20 cars...
My tentative conclusion is that Honda's decision to set up a second team is only partly due to the need to placate Japan for the imminent departure of Takuma Sato. There is another plan at work here. I believe that the Honda move (if it happens) is part of a strategy to improve the position of the manufacturer-supported teams against the FIA faction as we move into the final years of the existing Concorde Agreement.
Paul Stoddart is right. The fight is far from over, and this soap opera will run and run...

By now, I am sure you are all familiar with this meme, which was promulgated by the White House several months ago, as insurgency activity inside Iraq was growing.
"Stay the course" is about the best example I have ever heard of an empty slogan masquerading as a strategy. The use of the phrase (and its apparent acceptance by many major news media outlets) tells you a lot about the state of modern political communication in the USA, which tends to be dominated by swell-sounding phrases like this. The phrase tells us nothing about strategy, tactics or thinking. It is about as good an example as you can get of content-free, intellectually bankrupt speech.
Here is a pointed, well-argued denunciation of the whole "staying the course" meme.

Link: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/100405.html

As reported by Consortium News...once again Jack Abramoff, a well-known (possibly even notorious) Washington lobbyist, is facing a, well, er, awkward legal situation...
And to think that opponents tried to get Bill Clinton impeached over a blowjob...can anyone say "folks, get a sense of perspective????".