While the Democrats still talk withdrawal from Iraq, they ignore that withdrawal throws away victory, something being reached. The road is still long, obviously, but victory is clearly attainable.
OCTOBER 1 UPDATE - The Democrats also ignore one of the core reasons for liberating Iraq - Saddam Hussein's alliance with Al Qaida.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Lynching Of A Coach
It's become the latest firestorm pushed by the MSM, in this case the sports edition of the MSM. New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick is being ripped all over the NFL because a videographer for the Patriots was taping the sidelines of the New York Jets during the Patriots' 38-14 massacre of the Jets. Eric Mangini of the Jets had NFL security seize the camera, reportedly coming after a scuffle between the teams' dueling security units.
The camera is the center of a fit of folderol involing "illegal videotaping of defensive signals." The problem with the story is that the NFL rule supposedly forbidding the use of recording devices against opposing sidelines for use during a game is quite vague, and does not particularly forbid recording defensive players or signals for file footage. It is also telling that the NFL, despite repeated warning to the Patriots about this, made no effort to enforce the rule, an indication the league found it vague as well and suggests Belichick was sincere in misinterpreting the rule.
Call it finding and exploiting a loophole, but one strains to find any serious reason to feel the Patriots were engaged in cheating, brazen of otherwise. As former player Keyshawn Johnson has pointed out, this is scouting, legitimate gathering of information for the team - Roger Goodell's press release following the announcement of the fine acknowledged that the videotaping was irrelevent to the Jets game - and the patent absurdity of criticism comes out in the frequent comparisons, by Brett Favre, Frank Deford, and others, with stealing signs in baseball, with sign-stealing frequently defended, notably by Favre and even more notably by Deford, who was quoted calling it legitimate after condemning Belichick for what he did; Deford offered an absurd alibi by claiming it was legitimate if not done with "artificial enhancements" such as binoculars - you can steal signs if you're in the dugout, but you are crossing the line if you're in the grandstands using binoculars. This is idiocy squared and doesn't answer an obvious question - what's so sacrosanct about defensive signals, viewable by the stadium audience and on television, anyway?
But the attack dogs are straining to destroy Bill Belichick, and a fairly typical example is here, though this particular piece includes implausible inference that the Patriots were jamming opposing teams' radio signals between coaches - never mind that the NFL controls radios used during games. Indeed, some of the quotes attributed to coaches such as Charlie Weis are simply not believable, and the piece's extensive use of unnamed sources is troubling - if for no other reason than it has set off some writers/radio hosts such as Michael Felger of ESPN Radio, who spent Thursday on the airwaves with notorious ex-Patriots beat writer Ron Borges peddling self-evident ignorance and mendacity to attack Belichick.
Side note: Felger's lack of credibility on the Patriots stems from unctuous coverage of the Deion Branch contract brouhaha in 2006; Felger ripped the release of Branch and claimed the Patriots' receiver corps was too weak to be competitive, yet as Tom Casale pointed out on Felger's own radio show the day after the Patriots destroyed the San Diego Chargers, Felger flip-flopped when the Patriots went 12-4 and won playoff games with receivers Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney in the 2006 season. Felger of course lied about it in response.
In reading and hearing the varied attacks on Belichick, the theme is repeated about the "arrogance" of the Patriots - how Belichick would not shake the hand of Peyton Manning or Eric Mangini, how the Patriots did a mocking spoof of Shawne Merriman's idiotic sack dance after beating San Diego in the 2006 playoffs, and often includes the ridiculous story (first peddled by the Boston Globe as a hit piece against Belichick) that he threw former player Ted Johnson into full-contact drills even though Johnson had concussions, a story sourced entirely to Johnson, who was trying to explain away several anti-social acts on his part to concussions, and which had neither other corroborating evidence or even basic plausibility.
The problem with the arrogance argument is it inflates the importance of people opposing Belichick higher than they deserve. Peyton Manning may be a good guy, but given the bitterness of the rivalry between the Patriots and the Indianpolis Colts (whose GM Bill Polian, a member of the NFL Rules Committee, manipulated rules discussions to get rules enforced and thus get opposing defenses off his receivers after they were legitimately beaten up in several 2003 games) it isn't particularly relevent that Belichick didn't shake Manning's hand. Eric Mangini did the unthinkable and went to the Jets, a team historically famous for incompetence, interference (it was Jets front office interference that forced Belichick to quit on them despite being named head coach in 2000), and ineptitude - why Belichick should respect that the critics never answer. The "classlessness" of the Patriots' sack dance in San Diego came after a day of bullying by a San Diego squad long on bullying and short on maturity - the Chargers got what they deserved.
Then we get repeated whines about how Belichick doesn't provide good soundbite answers or "act sincere" during press conferences, and how he doesn't provide "good" answers. Yet again, no one explains why he should; it inflates the importance of those questioning Belichick higher than they deserve.
It has also been pointed out how other coaches in the league are not defending Belichick. Here the petty jealousy that exists in the league comes out, for Belichick really is better than virtually all these other coaches and teams. If Andy Reid of the Eagles, for one, is not videotaping Patriots' sidelines and signals, then his staff is not doing their job. And the whole brouhaha about "stealing" signals ignores what bears repeating - signals aree visible to everyone in the stadium and to viewers on television; it is an opposing team's job to decifer defensive signals.
The NFL eventually handed down a fine of $500,000 to Belichick, another $250,000 to the Patriots, and the loss of at least a first-round pick should they make the playoffs - fines that tellingly are not as severe as the $1 million fine plus some forfeited draft picks handed to the Denver Broncos several seasons ago for cheating on the salary cap in their two Superbowl triumphs - an act that earned the Broncos no MSM rebuke nor even serious MSM coverage. That any fine was handed down here at all was more to save face for the Commissioner's office amid disingenuous pressure from other teams.
The Lynching Of A Coach thus reached an end, for now. Hatred of Belichick will no doubt continue because of the mixture of ignorance about the legitimacy of gathering information plus jealous vitriol.
The camera is the center of a fit of folderol involing "illegal videotaping of defensive signals." The problem with the story is that the NFL rule supposedly forbidding the use of recording devices against opposing sidelines for use during a game is quite vague, and does not particularly forbid recording defensive players or signals for file footage. It is also telling that the NFL, despite repeated warning to the Patriots about this, made no effort to enforce the rule, an indication the league found it vague as well and suggests Belichick was sincere in misinterpreting the rule.
Call it finding and exploiting a loophole, but one strains to find any serious reason to feel the Patriots were engaged in cheating, brazen of otherwise. As former player Keyshawn Johnson has pointed out, this is scouting, legitimate gathering of information for the team - Roger Goodell's press release following the announcement of the fine acknowledged that the videotaping was irrelevent to the Jets game - and the patent absurdity of criticism comes out in the frequent comparisons, by Brett Favre, Frank Deford, and others, with stealing signs in baseball, with sign-stealing frequently defended, notably by Favre and even more notably by Deford, who was quoted calling it legitimate after condemning Belichick for what he did; Deford offered an absurd alibi by claiming it was legitimate if not done with "artificial enhancements" such as binoculars - you can steal signs if you're in the dugout, but you are crossing the line if you're in the grandstands using binoculars. This is idiocy squared and doesn't answer an obvious question - what's so sacrosanct about defensive signals, viewable by the stadium audience and on television, anyway?
But the attack dogs are straining to destroy Bill Belichick, and a fairly typical example is here, though this particular piece includes implausible inference that the Patriots were jamming opposing teams' radio signals between coaches - never mind that the NFL controls radios used during games. Indeed, some of the quotes attributed to coaches such as Charlie Weis are simply not believable, and the piece's extensive use of unnamed sources is troubling - if for no other reason than it has set off some writers/radio hosts such as Michael Felger of ESPN Radio, who spent Thursday on the airwaves with notorious ex-Patriots beat writer Ron Borges peddling self-evident ignorance and mendacity to attack Belichick.
Side note: Felger's lack of credibility on the Patriots stems from unctuous coverage of the Deion Branch contract brouhaha in 2006; Felger ripped the release of Branch and claimed the Patriots' receiver corps was too weak to be competitive, yet as Tom Casale pointed out on Felger's own radio show the day after the Patriots destroyed the San Diego Chargers, Felger flip-flopped when the Patriots went 12-4 and won playoff games with receivers Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney in the 2006 season. Felger of course lied about it in response.
In reading and hearing the varied attacks on Belichick, the theme is repeated about the "arrogance" of the Patriots - how Belichick would not shake the hand of Peyton Manning or Eric Mangini, how the Patriots did a mocking spoof of Shawne Merriman's idiotic sack dance after beating San Diego in the 2006 playoffs, and often includes the ridiculous story (first peddled by the Boston Globe as a hit piece against Belichick) that he threw former player Ted Johnson into full-contact drills even though Johnson had concussions, a story sourced entirely to Johnson, who was trying to explain away several anti-social acts on his part to concussions, and which had neither other corroborating evidence or even basic plausibility.
The problem with the arrogance argument is it inflates the importance of people opposing Belichick higher than they deserve. Peyton Manning may be a good guy, but given the bitterness of the rivalry between the Patriots and the Indianpolis Colts (whose GM Bill Polian, a member of the NFL Rules Committee, manipulated rules discussions to get rules enforced and thus get opposing defenses off his receivers after they were legitimately beaten up in several 2003 games) it isn't particularly relevent that Belichick didn't shake Manning's hand. Eric Mangini did the unthinkable and went to the Jets, a team historically famous for incompetence, interference (it was Jets front office interference that forced Belichick to quit on them despite being named head coach in 2000), and ineptitude - why Belichick should respect that the critics never answer. The "classlessness" of the Patriots' sack dance in San Diego came after a day of bullying by a San Diego squad long on bullying and short on maturity - the Chargers got what they deserved.
Then we get repeated whines about how Belichick doesn't provide good soundbite answers or "act sincere" during press conferences, and how he doesn't provide "good" answers. Yet again, no one explains why he should; it inflates the importance of those questioning Belichick higher than they deserve.
It has also been pointed out how other coaches in the league are not defending Belichick. Here the petty jealousy that exists in the league comes out, for Belichick really is better than virtually all these other coaches and teams. If Andy Reid of the Eagles, for one, is not videotaping Patriots' sidelines and signals, then his staff is not doing their job. And the whole brouhaha about "stealing" signals ignores what bears repeating - signals aree visible to everyone in the stadium and to viewers on television; it is an opposing team's job to decifer defensive signals.
The NFL eventually handed down a fine of $500,000 to Belichick, another $250,000 to the Patriots, and the loss of at least a first-round pick should they make the playoffs - fines that tellingly are not as severe as the $1 million fine plus some forfeited draft picks handed to the Denver Broncos several seasons ago for cheating on the salary cap in their two Superbowl triumphs - an act that earned the Broncos no MSM rebuke nor even serious MSM coverage. That any fine was handed down here at all was more to save face for the Commissioner's office amid disingenuous pressure from other teams.
The Lynching Of A Coach thus reached an end, for now. Hatred of Belichick will no doubt continue because of the mixture of ignorance about the legitimacy of gathering information plus jealous vitriol.
Obama's Non-Plan
Barack Obama has a "new plan" for Iraq. Trouble is, as shown in the link, it isn't new and it isn't a plan.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Petraeus Stuff
General David Petraeus gave testimony to Congress while getting slimed by MoveOn.org. And given Osama Bin laden (or his stunt double) citing Noam Chomsky and other American traitors, to believe the sincerity of liberal opposition to the war is foolishness.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
More Nonsense About Benchmarks
Back in July we heard about how Iraq supposedly didn't meet its benchmarks for progress. Then came another effort to claim they haven't met benchmarks and that effort at presentation got its comeuppance. Much of the discussion revolves around a GAO report on progress in Iraq, one that supposedly paints a pessimistic picture and which was flawed to start with. One area in particular pertains to Iraq's security forces, which the MSM obviously wish would fail, hence their premature spilling of ink claiming their progress has been slow or nonexistent. Nice try, guys, but the MSM didn't call the ball right - again.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Vietnam Water On The Brain
When President Bush cited the Vietnam War as justifcation for staying the course and winning in Iraq, Democrats loudly and disingenuously objected. Of course ignorance of the Vietnam War remains frightening among liberal circles with a particularly insulting deceit offered that we were somehow responsible for the Cambodia holocaust because of our supposed escalation of the war to Cambodia.
The facts don't bear this out. North Vietnam had garrisoned some 300,000 soldiers in Cambodia with their VC surrogates, attacking South Vietnam and at the same time building up the Khmer Rouge. The US began bombing these bases in 1969, with no objection from then-Cambodian leader Norodom Sihanouk. Sihanouk, because of his tacit collaboration with Hanoi, was overthrown by General Lon Nol, who then ordered the Communist Vietnamese out of his country. The North Vietnamese Army promptly attacked Cambodia; only then, in late April 1970, did the US strike into Cambodia to clean out enemy bases. The attack destroyed these bases but Congressional outrage bullied the US into pulling back before finishing the mission.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it. Bush actually leads, and Democrats howl in protest while trying to bully us into abandoning victory. It's why the Democrats are becoming less credible and relevent to anything.
The facts don't bear this out. North Vietnam had garrisoned some 300,000 soldiers in Cambodia with their VC surrogates, attacking South Vietnam and at the same time building up the Khmer Rouge. The US began bombing these bases in 1969, with no objection from then-Cambodian leader Norodom Sihanouk. Sihanouk, because of his tacit collaboration with Hanoi, was overthrown by General Lon Nol, who then ordered the Communist Vietnamese out of his country. The North Vietnamese Army promptly attacked Cambodia; only then, in late April 1970, did the US strike into Cambodia to clean out enemy bases. The attack destroyed these bases but Congressional outrage bullied the US into pulling back before finishing the mission.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it. Bush actually leads, and Democrats howl in protest while trying to bully us into abandoning victory. It's why the Democrats are becoming less credible and relevent to anything.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Inconvenient Truths About Hansen And Hillary
Two of liberalisms modern gods, Hillary Milhous Clinton and NASA gloabl-warming scaremonger James Hansen, have the intellectual sincerity and reliability of Michael Vick guarding a dog kennel. Hillary Milhous Clinton gets an interesting comparison while James Hansen gets skewered for his inaccurate data and then goes verbally postal about it.
What we have here is the discharge of more hot air than mankind could conceive over millenia.
What we have here is the discharge of more hot air than mankind could conceive over millenia.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Where Are The Lead Changes?
Jeff Owens looks back at Watkins Glen and believes NASCAR's increase in race winner points has intensified the excitement of the chase to the Chase. He cites the fact that several drivers overdrove their cars and spun out while in the general area of the leader and that Jeff Gordon spun out while leading with two to go; he also notes how Carl Edwards almost crashed on the final lap trying to catch Tony Stewart, and he cites some driver quotes to the effect that they were trying hard to win the race.
Owens notes how skepticism of this minor increase in race winner points - which is aimed at seeding of Chase contestants when the top twelve in points are reracked for the season's final ten races - began as soon as the change was announced and persisted as the season ran through one uncompetitive race after another. Owens' argument, however, begins falling apart when he calls the Watkins Glen GP "the most furious competition we have seen all season." Obviously Owens ignores the incredible war for the win in the Firecracker 400 at Daytona, a finish infinately more ferocious than anything that happened at Watkins Glen.
The points weren't particularly on the line, since the spread among the top twelve is for the most part too much of a chasm to matter. It is hard, however, to equate the varied spinouts of this Watkins Glen race with particularly great racing. If anything, they showed how useless road courses are to racing, since whenever someone drove hard they spun out.
But the key problem is really pretty simple - if they were really trying that hard, where were the lead changes?
By now of course it is undeniable that Winston Cup has been in a competitive funk for many years now, and Watkins Glen was just another Dead Lane Era race. The Jeff Owens article, though, comes amid recent weeks of rather public defensiveness by NASCAR about the quality of its competitive product, a defensiveness justified with continued slumps in ratings and attendence at Winston Cup races.
The increase in race winner points really affects nothing because all it does is seed the reracking of points for the playoffs and adds nothing to the actual point award for drivers; it does not make winning races relevent to the championship. And for all the rhetoric about wanting to win at Watkins Glen, all season long this minor increase in points hasn't done anything as far as the intensity of racing.
To live up to its billing, this points change would need to see racing like in the Firecracker 400 finish every week - the drivers would have to be fighting for the lead every race, lead change records would have to be threatened or broken, something that bhas not happened to any relevent degree since Bristol reached 41 lead changes in 1991. Ken Squier noted decades ago, "Lead changes tell the story of why this kind of racing provides the ultimate in competition." This remains as true today as back then, because lead changes are the only credible gauge of a race's competitiveness. And this increase in race winner points falls short yet again.
Talladega has regularly exceeded 40 lead changes every race in this decade; there is no reason why every other track can't do the same.
Owens notes how skepticism of this minor increase in race winner points - which is aimed at seeding of Chase contestants when the top twelve in points are reracked for the season's final ten races - began as soon as the change was announced and persisted as the season ran through one uncompetitive race after another. Owens' argument, however, begins falling apart when he calls the Watkins Glen GP "the most furious competition we have seen all season." Obviously Owens ignores the incredible war for the win in the Firecracker 400 at Daytona, a finish infinately more ferocious than anything that happened at Watkins Glen.
The points weren't particularly on the line, since the spread among the top twelve is for the most part too much of a chasm to matter. It is hard, however, to equate the varied spinouts of this Watkins Glen race with particularly great racing. If anything, they showed how useless road courses are to racing, since whenever someone drove hard they spun out.
But the key problem is really pretty simple - if they were really trying that hard, where were the lead changes?
By now of course it is undeniable that Winston Cup has been in a competitive funk for many years now, and Watkins Glen was just another Dead Lane Era race. The Jeff Owens article, though, comes amid recent weeks of rather public defensiveness by NASCAR about the quality of its competitive product, a defensiveness justified with continued slumps in ratings and attendence at Winston Cup races.
The increase in race winner points really affects nothing because all it does is seed the reracking of points for the playoffs and adds nothing to the actual point award for drivers; it does not make winning races relevent to the championship. And for all the rhetoric about wanting to win at Watkins Glen, all season long this minor increase in points hasn't done anything as far as the intensity of racing.
To live up to its billing, this points change would need to see racing like in the Firecracker 400 finish every week - the drivers would have to be fighting for the lead every race, lead change records would have to be threatened or broken, something that bhas not happened to any relevent degree since Bristol reached 41 lead changes in 1991. Ken Squier noted decades ago, "Lead changes tell the story of why this kind of racing provides the ultimate in competition." This remains as true today as back then, because lead changes are the only credible gauge of a race's competitiveness. And this increase in race winner points falls short yet again.
Talladega has regularly exceeded 40 lead changes every race in this decade; there is no reason why every other track can't do the same.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Blockhead Barack, or Idiot Obama
Barack Obama is a total idiot. He proudly proclaims how he was supposedly right in opposing the Iraq War - even as it continues to progress in our favor - and now says he'd invade Pakistan if they don't get serious about finishing off Al Qaida cadres holed up in the mountains.
One has to wonder why he opposed the Iraq War when he's so macho for invading Pakistan, since the Iraq War involved destroying a terror-sanctioning regime rearming for more direct aggression and now entails protecting a nascent democracy from overthrow by Iran/Syria-backed guerrillas. But the more one wonders, the more one realizes this is in keeping with what passes for foreign policy priorities with the Democrats - ignore America's enemies and instead punish our allies.
It shows in the "15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi" retort common to Bush-haters denying Iraq's alliance with Al Qaida; it is an implicit demand that we leave Iraq and instead invade Saudi Arabia. (The Bush-haters, BTW, never mention the ethnicity of the other four hijackers, who were from Baluchistan, a region controlled by Iran where Iraq recruited quite a few terrorists) This is the mind of someone not serious about who America's actual enemies are; scream about Saudi Arabia (cerrtainly groups in that nation do fund terrorism) but stop pretending that it is more dangerous than Saddamite Iraq.
It also shows in the history of Democratic presidencies. Though John Kennedy understood the reality of Soviet-backed aggression against South Vietnam he nonetheless allowed the overthrow of the Diem regime, which crippled Saigon's government at the worst possible time of that conflict. Jimmy Carter a quarter-century later did even worse, quietly sanctioning the undermining of the Shah in Iran and the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, both of which were promptly replaced by regimes sanctioning international aggression. Bill Clinton may not have been to that level of incompetence but he hardly comes out a winner in his less-than-sincere efforts against Islamo-Arab imperialism amid half a dozen major attacks and the open flaunting of sanctions by Iraq toward rearmament and sanctioning of terrorism (you do rememnder the Iraq Liberation Act of the 1990s, don't you?). And of course we had the grotesque specter of Nancy Pelosi going to Syria and prostituting herself to that regime, wearing the oppressive headwear that Islamo-Arab imperial societies practically staple to women to keep them in strict line.
Blockhead Barack is merely continuing a Democratic Party tradition of being total idiots about international security, a fit of idiocy involving dancing around reality.
One has to wonder why he opposed the Iraq War when he's so macho for invading Pakistan, since the Iraq War involved destroying a terror-sanctioning regime rearming for more direct aggression and now entails protecting a nascent democracy from overthrow by Iran/Syria-backed guerrillas. But the more one wonders, the more one realizes this is in keeping with what passes for foreign policy priorities with the Democrats - ignore America's enemies and instead punish our allies.
It shows in the "15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi" retort common to Bush-haters denying Iraq's alliance with Al Qaida; it is an implicit demand that we leave Iraq and instead invade Saudi Arabia. (The Bush-haters, BTW, never mention the ethnicity of the other four hijackers, who were from Baluchistan, a region controlled by Iran where Iraq recruited quite a few terrorists) This is the mind of someone not serious about who America's actual enemies are; scream about Saudi Arabia (cerrtainly groups in that nation do fund terrorism) but stop pretending that it is more dangerous than Saddamite Iraq.
It also shows in the history of Democratic presidencies. Though John Kennedy understood the reality of Soviet-backed aggression against South Vietnam he nonetheless allowed the overthrow of the Diem regime, which crippled Saigon's government at the worst possible time of that conflict. Jimmy Carter a quarter-century later did even worse, quietly sanctioning the undermining of the Shah in Iran and the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, both of which were promptly replaced by regimes sanctioning international aggression. Bill Clinton may not have been to that level of incompetence but he hardly comes out a winner in his less-than-sincere efforts against Islamo-Arab imperialism amid half a dozen major attacks and the open flaunting of sanctions by Iraq toward rearmament and sanctioning of terrorism (you do rememnder the Iraq Liberation Act of the 1990s, don't you?). And of course we had the grotesque specter of Nancy Pelosi going to Syria and prostituting herself to that regime, wearing the oppressive headwear that Islamo-Arab imperial societies practically staple to women to keep them in strict line.
Blockhead Barack is merely continuing a Democratic Party tradition of being total idiots about international security, a fit of idiocy involving dancing around reality.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Dems Whine "No Fair!" As Iraq Progresses
Yes, the New York Times did publish an article showing we in fact are winning in Iraq. And it's happening with some old-time methods. And it happens as Democrats whine that it's screwing up their agenda on Iraq.
Poor babies.
Poor babies.
Monday, July 30, 2007
William Ernest "Bill" Walsh, 1931-2007
This short compilation of Bill Walsh's coaching career gives a good indication of the magnitude of his excellence in the game, and why he may be the greatest coach of all time.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Moron Electorate
No one is more biting and spot-on with regard to political idiots than Emmitt Tyrrell, as he skewers the moron voting block of YouTube amid a debate by the moron crop of candidates running for President.
A Must-Read On The Surge
Douglas Hanson offers a superb breakdown on the recent surge against the enemy in Iraq, and also adds some much-needed insight about exactly how the Vietnam analogy works with regard to Iraq. Check out the success and context of this Surge.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
NASCAR'S Monopoly Of Eleven?
The buy out of Robert Ginn Racing by DEI continues the trend toward a monopoly of eleven that NASCAR has made no serious effort to stop. That it happened to a team that made a big splash early in this season is rather surprising, but also continues a streak in the sport of attracting wealthy types as car owners who turned out to have foundations of clay.
Ginn bought out Reed Morton and Nelson Bowers, and his businesses were supposed to provide seed money for the organization to expand its strength and become a first-rate, winning effort. The Morton-Bowers effort had debuted in 1997 with Derrike Cope and began running strong with Ernie Irvan before Irvan's injuries ended his career. Ken Schrader took over for 2000, then the organization bought out Tim Beverly's ex-Darrell Waltrip Pontiacs when a promised sponsorship for the season never happened. Valvoline came in as a part-owner and won at Rockingham in 2002 with Johnny Benson; the effort thus joined DEI, Andy Petree Racing, PPI, and Ray Evernham Motorsports as new teams to win at the Winston Cup level in this decade.
Joe Nemechek won in their primary car, the #01, in 2004, but from there the effort never got going, and then came Robert Ginn and with his infusion of money came a new part-time driver in Mark Martin and his spectacular runner-up in the Daytona 500. But as the season went on the money problems beneath the surface began to creep into view, and now we have the expansion of DEI.
The trend of mergers, of team owners quitting and selling their teams to other organizations already in the sport, has steadily raised the possibility that the sport will become an F1-style monopoly of eleven, where Hendrick, RCR, DEI, Joe Gibbs, Roush, Penske, Ganassi, Petty, Evernham, Bill Davis, and Dieter Mateschitz, or some variation of this list, would be the only teams fielding racecars at the Winston Cup level, with Robert Yates, Michael Waltrip, and other existing teams disbanding into one or more of these outfits.
Given the closed loop that is F1, such a scenario - periodically floated as part of a rumored NASCAR franchising deal - has no appeal for racing fans or for many others involved in the sport. The idea of smaller teams priced out of the sport has never been good for the sport, as the sport was built not on a monopoly of eleven but on a decentralized "chaos" of myriad team owners battling week after week.
That NASCAR has shown no effort at stopping this centralization of competitive power remains puzzling as such a centralization leaves the sport less competitive and thus less attractive. There is the four-car limit belatedly imposed last year but so far it's shown no teeth, and teeth is exactly what the sport needs at this point.
To paraphrase Bob Ryan, on behalf of a strong constituency, let's hope the monopoly of eleven doesn't happen.
Ginn bought out Reed Morton and Nelson Bowers, and his businesses were supposed to provide seed money for the organization to expand its strength and become a first-rate, winning effort. The Morton-Bowers effort had debuted in 1997 with Derrike Cope and began running strong with Ernie Irvan before Irvan's injuries ended his career. Ken Schrader took over for 2000, then the organization bought out Tim Beverly's ex-Darrell Waltrip Pontiacs when a promised sponsorship for the season never happened. Valvoline came in as a part-owner and won at Rockingham in 2002 with Johnny Benson; the effort thus joined DEI, Andy Petree Racing, PPI, and Ray Evernham Motorsports as new teams to win at the Winston Cup level in this decade.
Joe Nemechek won in their primary car, the #01, in 2004, but from there the effort never got going, and then came Robert Ginn and with his infusion of money came a new part-time driver in Mark Martin and his spectacular runner-up in the Daytona 500. But as the season went on the money problems beneath the surface began to creep into view, and now we have the expansion of DEI.
The trend of mergers, of team owners quitting and selling their teams to other organizations already in the sport, has steadily raised the possibility that the sport will become an F1-style monopoly of eleven, where Hendrick, RCR, DEI, Joe Gibbs, Roush, Penske, Ganassi, Petty, Evernham, Bill Davis, and Dieter Mateschitz, or some variation of this list, would be the only teams fielding racecars at the Winston Cup level, with Robert Yates, Michael Waltrip, and other existing teams disbanding into one or more of these outfits.
Given the closed loop that is F1, such a scenario - periodically floated as part of a rumored NASCAR franchising deal - has no appeal for racing fans or for many others involved in the sport. The idea of smaller teams priced out of the sport has never been good for the sport, as the sport was built not on a monopoly of eleven but on a decentralized "chaos" of myriad team owners battling week after week.
That NASCAR has shown no effort at stopping this centralization of competitive power remains puzzling as such a centralization leaves the sport less competitive and thus less attractive. There is the four-car limit belatedly imposed last year but so far it's shown no teeth, and teeth is exactly what the sport needs at this point.
To paraphrase Bob Ryan, on behalf of a strong constituency, let's hope the monopoly of eleven doesn't happen.
Friday, July 20, 2007
First Haditha, Now Shock Troops
The New Republic recently published a piece alleging atrocities by an American unit of what were called "shock troops." Now discrepencies in the story are coming out and raising doubt about its credibility.
The MSM briefly thought it had "the Iraq War's My Lai" at Haditha, and that went nowhere. Apparantly they're trying again here.
The MSM briefly thought it had "the Iraq War's My Lai" at Haditha, and that went nowhere. Apparantly they're trying again here.
The Foreign Policy Of The NY Times, Continued
Yep, they're at it again. First there was this attempt to distance Al Qaida from Saddam Hussein amid discussion of how strong Al Qaida is right now. Now with the National Intelligence Estimate report on Al Qaida, they're at it again about how "wrong" the Iraq war supposedly is. Spare us, guys, it's a bogus angle.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Polls Don't Win Wars
Over and over we hear about polls wanting the troops to come home from Iraq - polls that reflect the stupidity of pollsters and the unreality of ignoring the fact that the troops have to finish their mission there. Of course such foolishness is part of the absurd debate about the war that always detracts from discussing how to win it, though the new commander in Iraq obviously gets it from past experience.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Firecracker Shocker And Postscript
The 2007 Firecracker 400 reversed the old cliche - here it was the more things stay the same, the more they change. This race turned out to be the most frustrating of the season and when it was over it was the most eye-popping showdown in years and a finish that may have been the greatest in the history of the speedway, which is saying something given how much history Daytona has seen.
Most railbirds had given up on Jamie McMurray. When he jumped into Kurt Busch's former ride there was expectation that he'd continue to post strong runs but after three seasons without a sniff of a win most had no sense of another win out of him. Indeed, the 2006 season and the inconsistency of 2007 through June strongly suggested McMurray was a terrible fit with the Roush fleet, as according to Athlon Sports he often refused to listen to his crew chief and would make setup calls himself. Larry Carter's arrival for 2007 was his fourth crew chief in one season, and before the Firecracker the results had been mixed to say the least.
The surprising aspect of McMurray's win was that, sidedrafting Kyle Busch on the highside, McMurray appeared beaten as Busch could take the trioval ahead and beat him to the line, but on that last lap Busch started to squeeze ahead then suddenly McMurray up high seemed to suck off enough air from Busch to stop Busch's momentum and ride the sidedraft ahead at the stripe.
It all added up to an eye-popping finish. After 153 laps that saw some terrific racing up front and then absurdly long stretches where the cars were unable to suck up to each other and of course numerous crashes, the final sprint to the flag turned into a gigantic fight for the lead that wound up topping the mayhemic photo-finish win by Kevin Harvick in the 500. Now restrictor plate racing has always been superior competition to anything else NASCAR or most other racing series offer, but with a surface totally worn out, the race turned into a frustrating exercise in running in place not unlike what all the other tracks offer. It hurt the Busch 250 even more than the 400, which had prolonged nightfall and slightly cooler temperatures to help with handling.
But late cautions set up the seven-lap shootout and wound up rescuing Brian France from himself, as despite himself - a point not lost on some other observors - his organization saw a breathtaking showdown for the win that personified NASCAR at its best.
---------------------------
The win was Ford's fifth in the Firecracker in the last eleven runnings, a curious contrast as Chevrolet has won nine 500s in that span.
Most railbirds had given up on Jamie McMurray. When he jumped into Kurt Busch's former ride there was expectation that he'd continue to post strong runs but after three seasons without a sniff of a win most had no sense of another win out of him. Indeed, the 2006 season and the inconsistency of 2007 through June strongly suggested McMurray was a terrible fit with the Roush fleet, as according to Athlon Sports he often refused to listen to his crew chief and would make setup calls himself. Larry Carter's arrival for 2007 was his fourth crew chief in one season, and before the Firecracker the results had been mixed to say the least.
The surprising aspect of McMurray's win was that, sidedrafting Kyle Busch on the highside, McMurray appeared beaten as Busch could take the trioval ahead and beat him to the line, but on that last lap Busch started to squeeze ahead then suddenly McMurray up high seemed to suck off enough air from Busch to stop Busch's momentum and ride the sidedraft ahead at the stripe.
It all added up to an eye-popping finish. After 153 laps that saw some terrific racing up front and then absurdly long stretches where the cars were unable to suck up to each other and of course numerous crashes, the final sprint to the flag turned into a gigantic fight for the lead that wound up topping the mayhemic photo-finish win by Kevin Harvick in the 500. Now restrictor plate racing has always been superior competition to anything else NASCAR or most other racing series offer, but with a surface totally worn out, the race turned into a frustrating exercise in running in place not unlike what all the other tracks offer. It hurt the Busch 250 even more than the 400, which had prolonged nightfall and slightly cooler temperatures to help with handling.
But late cautions set up the seven-lap shootout and wound up rescuing Brian France from himself, as despite himself - a point not lost on some other observors - his organization saw a breathtaking showdown for the win that personified NASCAR at its best.
---------------------------
The win was Ford's fifth in the Firecracker in the last eleven runnings, a curious contrast as Chevrolet has won nine 500s in that span.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)