Link: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112812267933157321-eqZr6QPoqe9OcB1uJnbrvNj11sA_20051103.html?mod=blogs

I came across this informative expose from the Wall Street Journal today...

...where I spent a relaxing 4 days in Silver City with Marsha and my sister Cath, who is over from the UK.
We stayed in the Pinos Altos Cabins in the hills above Silver City, and hung out in the area, visiting a number of local attractions including the Gila Cliff Dwellings, the village of Mogollon and the Faywood Hot Springs.
More on this trip when I have time to write about it, plus the debut of my photo album....

...and it doesn't involve returning to CCWS. Instead, TCGR has signed Dan Wheldon for 2006. He will be part of a 2-car team with Scott Dixon. TCGR also has signed with Honda. My assumption is that the Honda deal was contingent on Ganassi signing Wheldon or a similar high-profile driver. You can be certain that Wheldon will be handsomely rewarded for his services in 2006 and beyond.
It seems that Wheldon was unwilling to sign on to a F1 testing deal with BMW for 2006, since there was no guarantee that he would ever be promoted to a race seat.
With the departure of Toyota from the IRL (not yet official, but they have already lost all of their competitive teams), Ryan Briscoe became expendable, and he is probably trying to get a seat with a Champ Car team (with the latest rumour being that Timo Glock and his DHL Germany backing are heading back to Europe and the GP2 series for 2006, a possible seat opens at Rocketsports).

Link: http://dailykos.com/comments/2005/11/29/102921/74/69#69

In which the poster identifies the uncomfortable reality that Jesus took a pretty dim view of the relentless accumulation of riches...

Last week, in a 28-page ruling, arbitrator Richard Bloch denied Terrell Owens' grievance against the Philadelphia Eagles.
The report provides a compelling and clear explanation of the unravelling of the relationship between T.O. and the Eagles, and leaves the reader in little doubt as to where the unravelling was coming from. It also eloquently concludes that the grievance is denied.
The reaction of the NFLPA was childish in the extreme. They are now threatening to have Bloch fired.
I can only assume that the NFLPA are suffering from the same dysfunction as their client. Let me try and spell this out one more time:
The World Does Not Revolve Around Terrell Owens.
Got that?

Every so often I come across examples of corporate governance where two facts stick out like a sore thumb:

1. The wrong guys were fired
2. nobody has been fooled by the firing - everybody can see that the wrong guys were fired

Well, Steve Mariucci has been fired, replaced (on an interim basis) by Dick Jauron. From a timing perspective, this is incomprehensible. Interim coaches very rarely land the job on a permanent basis. From that viewpoint, all that the Lions have done is replaced one dead-man-walking with another dead-man-walking. It is inconceivable that Jauron is going to magically improve the performance of the team in the remaining 5 games.
Matt Millen's coaching appointees are now a combined 20-55. One would think that with a coaching and drafting record represented by those results, the Lions would be showing Millen the door along with Mariucci. Accountability should begin at the top. Firing the coach is yet another example of a corporate cop-out. It seems that Lions president William Clay Ford has been persuaded to keep giving Millen chances, but cannot extend the same largesse to Mariucci. Firing Mariucci will be expensive, since he had over 2 years left on his contract (at around $5m per year) which the Lions will have to pay up.
It seems that the players are also not fooled by this development. Here, in an ESPN article, both Dre' Bly and Jeff Garcia point the finger upwards in the organization (towards Millen) and downwards (towards the beleaguered figure of QB Joey Harrington). This may, of course, not sit well with Millen, but my guess is that neither player wants to play for the Lions next year, so they felt that they had nothing to lose by speaking out.
With this move, the Lions may well have taken over the prize of NFL Idiot Franchise from the Arizona Cardinals. The Cardinals still have a mediocre team, but at least they no longer have a dysfunctional management and coaching approach.

This is what I sent to CSPAN after finding out that their correspondent has been persistently referring to the house debate as being on "the Murtha Resolution". This also appears to be the verdict of the New York Times.
Enough is enough. This is what I sent to CSPAN:

I am writing to ask you why you appear to be unable to distinguish between a proposed resolution introduced by Rep. Jim Murtha (Here is his statement introducing the resolution, and the text of the resolution itself) and the resolution being debated in the House of Representatives today, which was introduced by the Republican Party? It appears that your correspondents persistently referred to the resolution being debated as "the Murtha Resolution", when it was not the resolution that Rep. Murtha proposed.
Here is the text of the two resolutions. As anybody can see, the wording is very different:

Murtha's resolution:
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;
Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The House version:

RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.

This is not a trivial matter. A news organization like CSPAN should not be making public statements on a live broadcasting channel that are utterly and provably at variance with the facts. Such actions merely confirm my general impression that the mainstream broadcasting media in the USA are sloppy, unprofessional, and unwilling to be responsible for the accurate dissemination of information about the operation of the House of Representatives. This is inexcusable.
When will you be broadcasting a correction?

Sincerely,

Graham Shevlin

It will be interesting to see if I simply receive a pro-forma reply...

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10076817/

Lost in the general brou-ha-ha about the T.O. saga is the fact that, while T.O. often behaves like a horse's ass, there is a very good reason why he does. It gets results. This article explains how T.O, by a mixture of bluster, bluff and obduracy, has more often than not been able to have things his way.

Unless you have been outside the USA or in a coma, you will have noticed that the temperature of the debate about the US military campaign in Iraq is steadily rising. This is thanks in no small measure to comments made by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, who introduced a motion calling for a US withdrawal from Iraq. Here is his statement introducing the resolution, and the text of the resolution itself.

Predictably, Murtha's intervention has ignited a firestorm. As usual, most of the response from the Republican party and many media has run the gamut from the ineptly shrill to the utterly, vapidly slanderous. In response to previous comments by senior administration figures, Murtha finally did what Democratic military veterans should have done all along when faced with ad hominem attacks about their patriotism, and took aim at the documented chickenhawk tendency in the administration:

"I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done"

Among the more creative responses has been a sudden slew of allegations that Murtha co-owns a lobbying company that may have been involved in malfeasance. Nice one. Some folks don't seem to realize that I graduated from ad hominem 101 many years ago. How about answering Rep. Murtha's issues instead of reaching for the slime bucket?
Anyway, this one will run and run...the Republicans have introduced their own resolution. This, while superficially similar to Murtha's resolution, contains an important difference. It requires an immediate US withdrawal. The aim is simply to confuse the media and electors by putting up a resolution that forces the Democrats into a corner on their voting policy. If the media are awake and capable of explaining the subtle but very real difference between the two resolutions...on the other hand...sorry, what was I thinking? The media able to explain nuance? How foolish of me... C-SPAN, among other news networks, have reported that the House is voting on "The Murtha Resolution" when they are voting on a different resolution introduced by the Republican party. Geez, what a bunch of idiots.

Link: http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051118/LOCAL/211180307/1078/news

...about a crackdown in the Tallahassee Department of Corrections...

I tell you, you can't make this stuff up...