About Us

Name: Ed Lilly
Biography
Name: Disgruntled in NY
Email: disgruntled.blogger1@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Much like Michael Corleone....

Posted by Ed Lilly on Friday, April 18, 2008 9:48:33 PM
... every time I think I have turned my back for good on German automobiles, they try to suck me back in!!!  The write-up from autoblog.com is intriguing, as there is apparently the possibility of "up to" 80 mpg.  Could have a diesel, which may boost their fuel efficiency for the potential micro-van version.  Unfortunately, I am still trying to figure out how to post images or photos on this blog, so if you want to see the micro-van concept, you'll have to click here.

While I have been very satisfied with my Subaru Outback wagon, in a few years when I start to consider a replacement, I could see myself test-driving vehicles like the current Mazda5, Mazda3, Scion xB, Honda Fit, Honda Element and Mini Clubman, as well as the Outback and Forester.  As long as my lovely wife has a larger vehicle that is a guaranteed family hauler when we have need of such capabilities, I probably will try to stick with something relatively basic but capable of reasonable family accommodation.  And if the up! micro-van is on the market, it will be hard for me to completely ignore it.

We'll see if it really comes to pass.  As I noted a while back, VW was trumpeting the re-birth of its Micro Bus shortly after the New Beetle came out and achieved success.  After delays and problems with various issues, the updated Micro Bus was shelved and VW announced that it will be slapping VW logos on Canadian Dodge/Chrysler minivans as an alternative.

I guess a worst case scenario is that VW announces late in 2010 that it will be introducing a Chinese-made micro-van instead of what they are now considering.  That will make it easy for me to continue to drive non-German cars.

Tags: cars   VW  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If social issues are the opiate of the elites...

Posted by Ed Lilly on Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:21:03 PM
...then I may have an alternative take on this interesting contrarian opinion column by Larry Bartels.  In the wake of Barack Obama's comments at a San Francisco fundraiser about small town residents being driven to God and guns as a result of despair over their position in the economic order, many commentators have focused on this slap in the face of the average Americans to whom they believe Obama seeks to appeal in order to win both the Democrat presidential nomination and the general election.

Mr. Bartels has a slightly different take on the episode, arguing that the relevant data show the reality of how small-town voters behave is exactly the opposite of what Obama told his millionaire campaign donors on Billionaire Row in San Fransisco.  To wit, Bartels notes:

Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion.  In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.

Bartels then goes on to cite various statistics from a 2004 National Election Study to buttress his argument that it is the liberal elites who are primarily influenced by social issues in voting rather than small-town, average Americans.  He then goes on to compare Obama's likely election returns as opposed to John Kerry in 2004, and John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey in 1960 and 1968, respectively:

Mr. Obama should do as well or better among [small-town, working-class] voters if he is the Democratic candidate in November.  If he doesn't, it won't be because he has offended the tender sensibilities of small-town Americans.  It will be because he has embraced a misleading stereotype of who they are and what they care about.

In thinking this through, however, I am not so sure Bartels' explanation for Obama's possible failure to garner the votes of small-town Americans is accurate.  Certainly it's one possible explanation.  But in reading the entire piece, and applying some common sense, I can think of at least one other possible explanation in the event Obama fails to get as many small-town votes as John Kerry.

First, given the information Bartels is citing is from a study conducted by the University of Michigan, I have to conclude that Obama's campaign has access to the same information, and is smart enough to be able to read it as well as Bartels.

Which leads me to conclude that Obama's smear of small-town voters was not voiced out of his embracing "a misleading stereotype of who they are and what they care about."  Rather, I expect it is a cynical use of that misleading stereotype, which is most likely shared by Obama's millionaire donors, as a way of appealing to Obama's base of "cosmopolitan" voters, as Bartels defines them.  Thus, I don't think Obama and his campaign are so dumb and/or misinformed that they believe what Obama said about small-town voters.  I think they are smart enough to know that their San Francisco donors believe almost exactly what Obama said, and used that as a way to appeal to them and motivate them to contribute and network for the Obama campaign.

Moreover, my understanding is that Obama didn't expect his comments on small-town voters to be "on the record."  Many commentators have cited this as further evidence that his remarks were more candid and revealing as he believed them to be private.

Perhaps.  But again I have a nagging suspicion that Obama simply said these things in an attempt to appeal to his millionaire liberal pals.  What was the saying, making them feel comfortable with their prejudices?

This conclusion doesn't make me think any more highly of Obama and his campaign, in any event.  When the two most logical choices in this matter are that he and his campaign are so inept that they don't have any clue what motivates small-town voters, or they are so cynical that they would use knowingly false stereotypes to whip up support amongst their voter base, I don't see much to make me think there is anything new or transformative to this candidate.

As for another explanation in the event Obama fares poorly with small-town voters, it could be chalked up to the possibility that such voters know a phony when they see one, and aren't much inclined to vote for one.  Unfortunately, Bartels' does not provide any indication of how Bill Clinton fared in 1992 or 1996 with his defined voters groups, so it is a difficult hypothesis to test.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lessons in obfuscation and clarity in death penalty decision story

Posted by Ed Lilly on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:59:41 PM
This story from Breitbart.com on the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the viability of a three-drug system of lethal injection in administering the death penalty is a bit confusing.  It starts out as follows:

U.S. executions are all but sure to resume soon after a nationwide halt, cleared Wednesday by a splintered Supreme Court that approved the most widely used method of lethal injection.
    ....

 Voting 7-2, the conservative [sic] court led by Chief Justice John Roberts rebuffed the latest assault on capital punishment, this time by foes focusing on methods rather than on the legality of the death penalty itself. Justice John Paul Stevens voted with the majority on the question of lethal injections but said for the first time that he now believes the death penalty is unconstitutional.

First, 7-2 doesn’t exactly sound very splintered to me.  Reading further into the second paragraph above, however, I start getting confused.  I expected Justice Stevens to be one of the 2 who are in the minority of a 7-2 vote.  Clearly he was not.

But somehow, Justice Stevens managed to perform the kind of legal jujitsu that only a hyper-liberal Supreme Court Justice could hope to achieve or understand, voting that the method of execution at issue is constitutional, but the death penalty itself is somehow unconstitutional.  I’m sure that makes sense to someone, and maybe even to Stevens, but it leaves me completely bewildered.  Especially in light of the reference in the story to the fact that the legality of the death penalty itself was not at issue in the case.

So Stevens answered a question that wasn’t asked, in a way that would seem to preclude the approval of lethal injections, and then goes on record in the only vote that really counts in the matter with the majority of votes saying lethal injections are just fine.

As the story explicitly notes further on:

 The case decided Wednesday was not about the constitutionality of the death penalty generally or even lethal injection. Instead, two Kentucky death row inmates contended that their executions could be carried out more humanely, with less risk of pain.

I hope those two Kentucky death row inmates sleep well at night knowing that Justice Stevens thinks their sentence is unconstitutional, but if the state wants to inject them with a three drug cocktail that results in their death, that is perfectly constitutional.

The story goes on to bring in some essentially irrelevant information on the current visit by the Pope:

 Wednesday's decision was announced with Pope Benedict XVI, a prominent death penalty critic, in Washington and the court's five Catholic justices—Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—headed to the White House for a dinner in his honor. All five supported the lethal injection procedures.

I wasn’t aware that Supreme Court decisions and state visits were in any way related, but apparently I was wrong.  In any event, I suppose we should be grateful for the example set by President Kennedy when he promised in 1960 that he would not be a papal puppet in his role as President.  Clearly, the Catholic Justices named were able to do exactly as they promised in their Senate confirmation hearings and decide the case before them on the applicable rule of law, and not on the preferences of whoever may occupy the Vatican at the time the case comes before them.

If I were a news editor, I think I would shake things up bit and put the last two paragraphs of this story on the Supreme Court’s decision right up front, and have the reporter expand it to provide a little more information on the actual victims in these cases.  From the end of the story:

 Wednesday's case involved two inmates, Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr., who were convicted of murder and sentenced to death by juries in Kentucky. Baze killed a sheriff and a deputy who were attempting to arrest him. Bowling shot and killed a couple and wounded their 2-year-old son outside their dry-cleaning business.

Fayette County Commonwealth Attorney Ray Larson, who prosecuted Bowling in 1992, said after the ruling: "Fact of the matter is, this lethal injection process is about as far from cruel and unusual as anything you can imagine. This is just another one of those things the anti-death penalty gang is throwing against the wall to see what sticks."

Mr. Larson’s no-nonsense, common sense approach most likely means he will never be appointed to sit on the Supreme Court.  More’s the pity.

Finally, I saw the excerpt below from Justice Scalia’s opinion in a post by Jonah Goldberg at The Corner at National Review Online, and can not pass up the opportunity to include it here.  Scalia’s opinions were often the highlights of our law school readings, as he mercilessly skewered the (in our view) shaky logic and ridiculous conclusions of the other Justices, typically Justices Stevens and Blackmun.  Enjoy:

    But actually none of this really matters. As JUSTICE
    STEVENS explains, " 'objective evidence, though of great
    importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy,
    for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own
    judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the
    acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth
    Amendment.' " Ante, at 14 (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536
    U. S. 304, 312 (2002); emphasis added; some internal
    quotation marks omitted). "I have relied on my own experience
    in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of
    the death penalty" is unconstitutional. Ante, at 17 (emphasis
    added).
    
    Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule
    by judicial fiat. In the face of JUSTICE STEVENS' experience,
    the experience of all others is, it appears, of little
    consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and
    the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of
    punishment—is dismissed as "the product of habit and
    inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process."
    Ante, at 8. The experience of social scientists whose
    studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is
    relegated to a footnote. Ante, at 10, n. 13. The experience
    of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described,
    with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as
    stemming from a "thirst for vengeance." Ante, at 11. It is
    JUSTICE STEVENS' experience that reigns over all.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Inigo Montoya does not think this story means what the author thinks it means

Posted by Ed Lilly on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 11:50:30 AM
Scott Soshnick is a columnist with Bloomberg.com.  He writes sports opinion pieces, and his latest work is on the issue of whether a boycott of the Peiping Olympics makes sense.  Soshnick clearly does not think a boycott is a good idea, and recites a lengthy story about Olympic hopeful Craig Beardsley to make his case.  From the article:

Sports fans should know what the Beardsley family sacrificed for a chance to represent the U.S.

Beardsley at age 4 learned to swim at the 92nd Street Y on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. He attended the United Nations International School, where one of his classmates was an Afghani prince.

Apparently Mr. Beardsley sacrificed by coming from a wealthy and powerful family, as the 92nd Street Y and the UN International School are not the types of places that the hoi polloi get into.  Reading on, we see:

Diplomacy runs in the Beardsley family. His grandfather was consul-general for the Republic of China to Peru in the 1950s.  His mother fled Shanghai during the Communist takeover of 1949.

“One of the last boats out,” he says.

Beardsley's grade-school days began with a 45-minute commute (90 minutes with traffic) from home in Harrington Park, New Jersey, to Manhattan, where his father worked.  First learning.  Then swimming.  Then back to dad's office.  Then home by 6 p.m.  Maybe.  Then more swimming.  Friends were scarce.

“No time,” Beardsley says.

Mom and dad forced Beardsley to join the local swim team.  There, his first coach, a former U.S. Marine, affixed some sort of bands around Craig's ankles to keep his feet together.  By age 11 Beardsley was being recruited by area swim clubs.

Yep.  Dad’s a political bigshot with connections.  That explains the Y and the school.  But more telling is the simple reference to the parents having FORCED Beardsley to join the swim team, and dragging him 50 miles a day round trip into New York and back as a grade schooler.

I thought this story was about what the family sacrificed for young Craig to represent the U.S.

Moving on:

Serious training started at age 12.  All-swimming, all-the- time.  No basketball.  Not anymore.

Beardsley remembers his father waking him up at 4:15 a.m. for morning workouts.  At 14, Craig, an accomplished cellist (his mother was a concert pianist), was accepted to the Manhattan School of Music.  A wasted application.

“I was spending all of my time in the pool,” he says.

Soshnick may be right that a boycott isn’t the right thing to do to the athletes.  But more than anything, what I take from his tale of Craig Beardsley is that at least some Olympic athletes and their families may be crazy and have their priorities completely out of whack.

Apparently Soshnick doesn’t see it that way:

Think about Craig Beardsley the next time some politician or activist uses the word boycott. Think about the 4-year-old's commute. Think about bloody hands and up-river swims.

A 4-year-old’s commute?!  This in some way makes sense to anyone as an argument about the greatness and worth of the Olympics?!

How about I meet Soshnick half-way.  I’ll think about Craig Beardsley the next time someone tells me how great the Olympics are.  And if Craig Beardsley’s story is in any way representative of the background of even 10 percent of U.S. Olympic athletes, I will be completely on board with shutting down our Olympic programs and letting the kids who are being forced into insane athletic training regimens try to get some kind of balance and normalcy in their lives.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Maybe Harvard could relocate to a remote area of New Mexico

Posted by Ed Lilly on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 9:41:40 AM
So there will be sufficient space for female students to exercise with proper male supervision.  The excellent blog, Urgent Agenda, has a post on this article from the Washington Post.  Here’s the snippet that caught my eye:

Powerful religious clerics also ban sports for girls in public schools, deeming it un-Islamic, and recently canceled two rare all-women's events, a soccer match and a marathon. Gyms for women were closed in the early 1990s and have been allowed to reopen, but only when affiliated with hospitals.

Further in we find:

Banning the opening of these sports centers is not a ban on sports. A woman can practice sports at home, and there are many ways to do that, or she can race her husband in a deserted area, like the prophet Muhammad ... who raced with his wife Aisha twice.

So what will Harvard do when their Islamic overlords in Saudi Arabia, who have most likely donated millions of dollars to fund various things at Harvard, point out that they don’t want women using gymnasiums?  Will the whole separate but equal system for Harvard’s recreational facilities collapse?  Will there be a re-thinking of Title IX as culturally insensitive to the wealthy donors who call the shots at Ivy League universities?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Memorable foods from childhood

Posted by Ed Lilly on Monday, April 14, 2008 10:11:03 AM
There are some things in life that you don't even think about how you know them.  They just are.  As a kid, and budding consumer, I knew about various types of cereals from commercials during Saturday morning cartoons, even if I didn't get to eat some of them.  Quisp, Cookie Crisp, Honeycombs, Sugar Smacks, Froot Loops, Trix, Coco Puffs, Lucky Charms, etc.  Standard sugary cereals for kids in the late 60s and 70s.

Special lunch treats or after school snacks like Twinkies, Ho Ho's, and Ding Dongs were always welcome (I was never much of a Sno Balls fan).

So a few months ago, during a visit with friends, one of our friends made a comment about hearing that Twinkies were no longer made.  This couldn't be possible.  I was sure I had seen them in the store sometime in the not-too-distant past.

But what really surprised us was the follow-up question from our 7 year old daughter, "What's a Twinkie?"  How could we have failed our children so that we allowed her to reach the age of 7 without ever experiencing a Twinkie?

All's still right with the world, as I have seen and purchased Twinkies at the store.  And now that my daughter's had one, she hasn't made any request that we buy more.  That's ok.  Perhaps on rare occasions, one of the kids will ask about getting some of those cream filled cakes that looked like bananas.  And if they are still around, we'll probably have them again.

With summer now approaching, and the first trip by the ice cream truck through the neighborhood over the weekend, I realized that along with failing to expose my children to Twinkies early in life, they have no concept of what a Dilly Bar is.  I thought there was a Dairy Queen not far from our house, but when I drove over to the area to see if I was right, there was no such place.  Perhaps just a faulty memory on my part.

Fortunately, in getting lost last week while running an unrelated errand, I wound up crossing the Trenton Makes the World Takes bridge over the Delaware River into Pennsylvania.  I turned around at the first intersection to head back to Trenton, and in making the turn, spotted a DQ down the street.

I told my lovely wife about what I had found, and pointed out that I would most likely have to go back down there to get a bag of Dilly Bars for the freezer.  For the kids, of course.

She was quick to point out that I better not come home without a bag of Buster Bars as well.

As if I somehow wouldn't also get Buster Bars.  Sometimes I wonder if she even knows me.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Language and logic on the campaign trail

Posted by Ed Lilly on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:50:16 PM
I heard some of Dennis Prager's radio show yesterday while I was in the car, and loved the "campaign promise" that he made.  Prager was playing clips of Senator Clinton lying [ed. - forgot the strikethrough before, oops] speaking about the pregnant woman / denial of health care story, during which Clinton made some reference to the woman in the story, "havin' some trouble."

Prager picked up on the use of "havin'" in the story, noting that politicians often use little tropes like that in speaking to audiences, trying to get people to identify with them.  As Prager noted, Mrs. Clinton went to Yale law school, and uses the word "having" when she speaks.

Chuckling about such absurdity in speaking, Prager promised that, in the event he ever runs for office, he will use the letter "g" when he speaks.  It's a great observation and a great "promise."

Which brings me to the story on Senator Obama's talk about his patriotism.  Jules Crittenden linked to this story in the Boston Herald, which provides Obama's statement in relevant part:

“I love this country not because it’s perfect, but because we’ve always been able to move it closer to perfection,”

A lot of people have written about how wonderful Obama is as a speaker, and I guess I'll take their word for it.  I think the last speech or address by a politician that I listened to was President Bush's address either immediately after 9/11, or his State of the Union address the following January.

What prompts me to instantly dislike Obama's statement is the false dichotomy that he, and so many politicians, sets up.  I don't love this country because it's perfect either, and I don't think anyone has seriously tried to argue that it is a perfect country.  But this country stands for the right things.  Freedom.  Opportunity.  The notion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was not just thrown in on a whim by the Founding Fathers.

That doesn't mean everything that has ever happened here has been perfect, or even right.  But this is still the greatest country, in terms of what it stands for and what it offers to the world's people, in history.

For Senator Obama to talk about silly hypotheticals like "perfection" is ridiculous.  There never has been, nor will there ever be, a perfect country.  Discussion of even moving it closer to perfection is something I would expect from a high school sophomore on the debate team.  This is a great country.  And it bothers me that a presidential candidate who so many praise as a great speaker seems incapable of saying something so obvious and true, and meaning it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

That's about the pace I expect from soccer

Posted by Ed Lilly on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:45:42 AM
I heard last week that David Beckham scored his first ever goal for the Los Angeles Galaxy.  Which of course made me, as a sports xenophobe, shake my head and wonder why people still try to force soccer onto the American public.  Beckham was signed by the Galaxy in January of last year.  And we're getting news 14 months later that he's finally scored ONE GOAL?

As much as I want my kids to run around outside and be active, I'm kind of glad so far that neither of them has shown the slightest interest in soccer.  Kind of reminds me of the old bumper sticker about the Air Force and schools, though for my tastes, I'd love to slap one on my car that says, "It will be a great day when baseball diamonds are full with kids playing pickup games, and soccer fields are empty."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"I'd rather be dumber and a champion."

Posted by Ed Lilly on Friday, April 04, 2008 10:11:34 AM
Wise words in that title from ESPN radio host and football analyst Mike Golic in response to George Will's latest column in Newsweek on the new book Your Brain on Cubs:

Yes, rooting for the Cubs is a minority taste because it is an interminable tutorial in delayed gratification, but "there is some evidence that being in the majority (everyone loves a winner) reduces reflective thinking."

"The scientific literature," Grafman says, "suggests that fans of losing teams turn out to be better decision-makers and deal better with divergent thought, as opposed to the unreflective fans of winning teams."

Tags: Cubs   baseball  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I guess Matt Leinart can always be president of Formula 1 racing

Posted by Ed Lilly on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:55:58 PM
Sports is a pretty fluffy topic on its own.  But when you get sports mixed with sexual scandal, you get fluffy and (arguably) very amusing stuff.  First, St Louis Arizona Cardinals quarterback Matt Leinart's situation:

After seeing Internet photos of Matt Leinart partying last weekend at his Arizona home, Cardinals coach Ken Whisenhunt said he was "disappointed" in his quarterback.

Among the four photos splashed across Web sites thedirty.com and TMZ.com over the weekend, Leinart was shown assisting a co-ed drinking from a beer bong in one and sharing a hot tub with four women in another. The photos ran on SportsCenter on Tuesday.

"Matt called me Monday morning and we spoke for a while," Whisenhunt said in a statement obtained by the East Valley Tribune. "I reiterated to him the type of behavior that we expect at all times from our players. He understands that as well as the level of scrutiny that he's under because of who he is. It's being handled internally.

Not great publicity for Leinart, the Cardinals, or the NFL.  But hey, at least Leinart didn't have a story like this come out about him (h/t Mark Steyn at NRO's The Corner for the Euro version):

    The son of infamous British wartime fascist leader Oswald Mosley is filmed romping with five hookers at a depraved NAZI-STYLE orgy in a torture dungeon. Mosley— a friend to F1 big names like Bernie Ecclestone and Lewis Hamilton— barks ORDERS in GERMAN as he lashes girls wearing mock DEATH CAMP uniforms and enjoys being whipped until he BLEEDS...

    At one point the wrinkled 67-year-old—who publicly likes to give the impression he has put his father's evil legacy behind him—yells "she needs more of ze punishment!" while brandishing a LEATHER STRAP over a brunette's naked bottom.

    Then the lashes rain down as Mosley counts them out in German: "Eins! Zwei! Drei! Vier! Fünf! Sechs!.."

    Last month the urbane president of the FIA—Formula One's governing body—hit the headlines when he announced a crackdown on racism in the sport after McLaren ace Lewis Hamilton was abused by Spanish spectators.

    But on Friday the only ‘crackdowns' married Mosley was interested in were on bare buttocks...

    The 6ft 2in former barrister once helped his father try to restart his political career in the Sixties with a new fascist Union Movement party. He was even a prospective parliamentary candidate himself.

    But the party that got his vote on Friday was one involving violent perversion in a rigged-up basement torture dungeon.

Certainly sounds a little worse than Leinert's frolics, from a public relations perspective, anyway.  So what's the reaction in the world of Formula 1?  Well, here's the initial response:

Formula One chief executive Bernie Ecclestone told at least one London newspaper that Mosley's job was not in jeopardy.

"I find it difficult to believe. It's his business but it sounds to me like a set-up. Has he in any way damaged F1? No," he told the Daily Mail.

Later Monday, the Times Online reported that sources close to Mosley said he wouldn't resign.

Ecclestone's quote is classic:  I don't believe it.  It's his own private business.  He was set up.  This has nothing to do with F1.

I think the only things he missed were the normally kiss-of-death vote of confidence and a promise of exoneration.

UPDATE - Fixed the spelling of Leinart's name in the title of the post and body so that it's consistent with the story.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Moises Alou exonerates Steve Bartman?

Posted by Ed Lilly on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:26:19 PM
I guess the opening of the baseball season is not interesting on its own, so we have to somehow dredge up the Cubs 2003 NLCS Game 6 collapse:

Should Steve Bartman be off the hook with Cubs fans? According to Moises Alou, he should be.

Alou, now with the Mets, said he wouldn't have caught the now-infamous pop foul in the 2003 National League Championship Series that hit the heel of Bartman's hand in the eighth inning of Game 6, prolonging an inning in which the Marlins later rallied for the lead. Florida went on to win the series.

Ooooohhhhhkay.  My own memory is a little different on Moises' chances, as the story notes further on:

That stands in stark contrast to Alou's reaction at the time. After the play, he jumped up and down with his arms outstretched.

After the game, he said: "I timed it perfectly, I jumped perfectly. I'm almost 100 percent that I had a clean shot to catch the ball. All of a sudden, there's a hand on my glove."

Who are you gonna believe, Moises or ..... Moises?!
Tags: Cubs   baseball  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A long, slow decline for IU hoops

Posted by Ed Lilly on Sunday, March 30, 2008 8:59:20 PM
As great as it was growing up watching Bob Knight's teams at Indiana, the steady decline from his last really top notch team in the early 90s, which could very well have won a national championship until Alan Henderson suffered a broken leg, to the interim-coach Dan Dakich crew that couldn't get out of the first round of the NCAA tournament has been painful and tortuous.  I hoped that after the shock of Knight's firing and the inevitable collapse of whatever coach followed the legend, the school would be able to find someone with the ability to recruit and coach a solid team that could once again put Indiana basketball back into contention for a national championship.

The mere possibility that anyone in Bloomington might be even thinking about talking to Isiah Thomas about the men's basketball program tells me the Hoosier faithful are only at the beginning of a Cub-like century of mediocrity, futility and frustration.  From SI.com:

Embattled New York Knicks coach Isiah Thomas sidestepped whether he's interested in talking with Indiana University about its head coaching position.

Thomas, whose Knicks have lost five of six and 13 of 15, has a 53-101 record in two seasons with the Knicks. Though he helped Indiana win the 1981 NCAA championship, Thomas has never coached in college.

He indicated the Hoosiers haven't consulted him.

The Indiana student body needs to figure out a way to wipe out all forms of communication that might be used by anyone in the Indiana athletic department to contact Zeke.  Yesterday.

Tags: IU   Basketball  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Turning Reagan upside down

Posted by Ed Lilly on Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:47:01 PM
So much of politics and government is maddening and disillusioning that, while I make some effort to keep up to date on what's going on in the political world, I don't want to devote too much of my blogging to it.  My displeasure with so much of the political world would make extensive blogging on such a topic no fun for me to write.  That said, there are occasions, topics and themes that I sometimes find interesting and worth trying to ponder.  A short post on Powerline today served as just such a jumping off point relating to a comment my father made last week.  We'll get to that in due time.

First, the title of the Powerline post is:

WE ARE ALL ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICANS NOW

It is essentially a link to a newsletter where John Hinderaker, one of the Powerline bloggers, has contributed a short piece on the legacy of Nelson Rockefeller.  The title of the piece pretty much explains the central point of Hinderaker's article.  Here are a few excerpts and thoughts:

But the highly partisan tone of political discourse today disguises the fact that the two major parties are as close together ideologically as they ever have been in American history.  Far from being endangered, the political center is dominant.

Hinderaker is probably a lot more knowledgeable than I am about where the two political parties are at this point, so I'll take him at his word on this.  But if he is right, then it is a truly depressing reality.  As spelled out further into the article:

The use of American military power abroad and the extent to which the federal government should control its citizens' medical care are probably the most hotly disputed issues.  But these issues do not involve fundamental philosophical differences.  Which is another way of saying that the center, and not any political or philosophical extremes, currently dominates American politics.

Great.  The Republican party is not philosphically opposed to the federal government controlling the citizens' medical care, it's just quibbling over the degree of control.  Still more from the article:

In domestic policy, Rockefeller's most fundamental difference from his conservative rivals was his more expansive view of the role of government and his willingness to spend money and, if necessary, raise taxes. .... The Rockefeller Republicans were generally viewed not as hostile to the Democrats' government programs, but as committed to executing them more efficiently and more effectively than the liberals were willing or able to do.

What was it Newt Gingrich said about Bob Dole being the tax collector for the welfare state?  The more things change....

The final kicker:

Republicans no longer are trying to undo the New Deal, and Democrats no longer dream of a socialist future.  Republicans are resigned to an expanding federal role in domestic affairs, and Democrats look for ways to help American business.

Oof.  Never having been a card carrying member of a political party, if Hinderaker is right on where the Republican party is today, it doesn't look like there is any reason for someone with a small government, conservative mindset to waste any time or money supporting the Republicans.

The topic of this year's presidential race came up while my father and I were sitting in the rental office at the small hotel where we have stayed in Florida for several years now.   While I checked my email using the wireless internet access available in the office, my father and Lissy, the rental agent, discussed the election.  Lissy asked if we were Republicans, mentioning that she is a registered Republican.

Fortunately, I was involved with email, so my father answered that he is also a registered Republican, but that he has not been very happy with many of the things going on with the federal government and Bush administration.  Interestingly, he made reference to Reagan's declaration that he didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left him.  My father pointed out he feels much the same way about the Republican party.

The more I think about it, the more sense that comment makes.  And in light of Hinderaker's point that the Republican party is committed merely to better management of an ever-expanding federal government, I have to wonder if that may still spell trouble for the Republican nominee in this year's presidential election.  I would think that John McCain's best shot is for national security to be the dominant issue in this election.  Because if it comes down to domestic issues and federal programs, I can see a situation where a lot of conservatives sit on their hands or write in someone else.  I know I'll think long and hard about it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Proving PDX Dave's point?

Posted by Ed Lilly on Saturday, March 22, 2008 9:55:09 PM
I'm certainly not nearly is disturbed by whatever clerical error may have occurred in the case of SLA terrorist Kathleen Soliah as I am by the treatment of Nubs the dog.  Good that they caught it.  Good that she's going back in.  Another year in prison for her?  So be it.
Tags: Terrorism  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If you live near this Marine aviator, give him a hand if it's needed

Posted by Ed Lilly on Saturday, March 22, 2008 8:07:30 PM
Having lost our beloved companion of 16 years last fall, a Hoosier mutt of mixed parentage, I am particularly touched by this story of a U.S. Marine and those who helped make it possible for another beautiful dog to find a loving home.  May they have many years of loving companionship.  Here's the story in case you don't click through:

A San Diego-based Marine major was reunited on Saturday with one of his closest war buddies—a 2-year-old dog named Nubs.

Nubs greeted Maj. Brian Dennis at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station when the fighter pilot returned from Iraq.

It was the first time the two were together since Dennis' family and close friends helped raise $3,500 to fly the dog to San Diego about a month ago. Nubs wasn't allowed to stay on base in Iraq.

Dennis, 36, of St. Pete Beach, Fla., had spotted the mongrel dog while on patrol in Anbar province and later nursed the animal back to health after finding him stabbed with a screwdriver.

He named the dog Nubs after learning someone cut the ears off believing it would make the dog more aggressive and alert.
I'll never understand what it would take for someone to be able to do the kinds of things to a dog that are described here.  Thank goodness for this Marine and the efforts of all those who helped him.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…67891011121314…1920Next »