Bitey the Shark |
|
|
Not all who wander are lost...
Send comments to: biteytheshark@hotmail.com
Required Reading:
Winning Badly Archives Links:
International Herald Tribune
|
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
CHECK ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT... How can you justify doing this... Just one day after announcing this? I'm pretty much at a loss for words on this one. It's not only the news that confounds me, but the lack of media savvy in making both announcments almost concurrently. Does this mean that if a terrorist plot brings down an airliner this summer, the Bush administration will claim that it needs more money to pay for hotels in the "war" on terror? Tuesday, July 29, 2003
TERRORIST MANATEE!!! Oh yeah baby! Your Department of Homeland Security and the TSA are hard at work protecting you from terrorists! Being a Parrothead, BiteyTheShark is loving the name of the manatee. Monday, July 28, 2003
BIG SURPRISE... Like the football fans in St. Louis should be surprised by this. Jason Sehorn has got to be one of the most snake-bitten athletes of all time. I've questioned the severity of some of his injuries in the past, but a broken foot! We may never know if Sehorn would have been a great NFL defensive back... but he's still got game. Thursday, July 24, 2003
CHECKS AND BALANCES... This Fred Kaplan piece on Slate illustrates the lack of leadership qualitites in Congress that I have commented on before. Let me start by saying that my complaints apply to more than just Operation Iraqi Freedom. I really feel that partisan politicians have reached a point where they don't even perform due diligence when contemplating how to vote on an issue. The same applied for Democrats when they held the majority, so both parties are guilty of it. I feel like so many members of Congress are just votes in suits. So rare is the politician that actually goes against his party, even when his conscience tells him to do so. All I ask is that these individuals who consider themselves the leaders of America, actually break from the herd once in a while. Some say that the passion and the heartache resulting from 9-11 left members of Congress no choice but to support the president. I argue that that is precisely the the time when true leaders exercise the most caution in their judgement. Afterall, none of the bills described in the Kaplan piece would have impeded Bush from going after Iraq. All they would have done is require him to be accountable for his actions. I guess someone has to remind Congress that the concept of "checks and balances" doesn't mean you write the president a blank check and give him unprecedented access to your bank balance. AMERICAN MEDIA SALIVATING TO BE HYPOCRITICAL... PART 2 This is getting disgusting. Sounds like American media editors spent a real long time arguing about whether or not to publish the photos of the dead Hussein brothers. With news that the Defense Department will be releasing the gory photos today, Leon Johnson on CNN is so giddy, he is actually stumbling through his script. He is more excited about this than Judge Reinhold was about seeing Phoebe Cates get out of the pool. Wednesday, July 23, 2003
AMERICAN MEDIA SALIVATING TO BE HYPOCRITICAL... This is what happens when "objective" news organizations lose their objectivity and root for the home team. What am I talking about you ask? The photos of Saddam Hussein's dead sons. In the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, most U.S. news outlets decided not to air graphic footage showing dead American soldiers in Iraq. Heck, most of them even wimped out of showing video of the captured members of Jessica Lynch's 507th being interrogated. These news outlets claimed they were not airing the footage out of concern for maintaining some level of good taste. Now U.S. forces have killed Uday and Qusay Hussein. The administration hasn't decided yet if they will publicize photos of the dead brothers, but if comments from Paul Wolfowitz this morning are any indication, the photos will be public soon. The Defense Department will argue that the photos should be released because many Iraqis will not believe that the brothers Hussein are dead until they see the evidence. Furthermore, the DoD believes that publicizing the photos could save American lives because militant Iraqis might lose their hope of a Hussein return and stop sniping coaltion troops. I happen to agree with that assertation. If the photos are released, American news outlets will show them. However, if the only purpose of airing the evidence is to show it to Iraqis, how can American news agencies justify showing the photos? Iraqis neither watch nor trust ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox. Some may watch CNN, but they trust Al-Jazeera the most. You will recall that Al-Jazeera showed the footage of the dead Americans and were criticized by Donnald Rumsfeld and the patriotic American media. In a rather hilarious display of foolish pro-American zealotry, Al-Jazeera business reporters were even kicked out of the stock market. If Al-Jazeera wants to show the photos, more power to them. At least they will be maintaining a level of objective consistency in their reporting. For American news outlets to show the photos on the grounds of national security is ridiculous and hypocritical. They will adopt the DoD reasoning, but the truth is that these "objective" news agencies will show the photos because they are "their" dead guys, not "our" dead guys. Tuesday, July 22, 2003
BUSY NEWS DAY... My oh my! Today's news has been coming fast and furious. The five biggest stories of the day, in order of importance (according to Bitey)... 1. The Extermination of Uday and Qusay Hussein Obviously a huge development for coalition forces, but I'm not getting my panties in a ruffle over it. I do believe that a certain amount of Iraqis have been afraid of a return to power by Saddam Hussein. Can you blame them? After the Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. urged dissidents to rise up and overthrow Saddam. With no tactical support from Allied forces, those who followed this advice generally ended up dead. Fast-forward to 2003. I think today's news will go a long way towards convincing Iraqis that Saddam is not coming back. Furthermore, one of two things will happen to those responsible for continuing to kill coalition forces on a daily basis. They will either get really pissed off, and increase their resistance, or they will head for the hills because it will be apparent that they can no longer hope for a return of their beloved leader. One thing today's news does not do is exonerate the administration for the "16 Words" fiasco or the criminal acts at least two people in the administration committed in trying to discredit/scare Joseph Wilson. Some have argued that finding Saddam himself will make the uranium story go away. That might be true, but only because of the giant media bubble the capture/death of Saddam would create. Bush would have still misled the country during his State of the Union speech, and the Joseph Wilson-bashing criminals would still be in the White House, but Americans have short attention spans, so they simply won't care. 2. Fighting in Liberia Let me get this straight... by all accounts, the U.S. embassy in Monrovia has taken small arms and mortar fire, and the Defense Department has done next to nothing. Rebels are attacking a U.S. embassy just like al-Qaeda has done in the past, and Bush doesn't care. Hmmm... very interesting. 3. Jessica Lynch Goes Home The only real feel-good story of the day. It doesn't really matter if you believe the hyped-up circumstances surrounding her capture and "rescue" or not, it's always a good thing to see a human being at home and out of senseless harm's way. 4. Charges Filed in Patrick Dennehy Case; Body Found near Waco I always knew this story was going to end badly. Surely Carlton Dotson had dreams of playing in the NBA. Sounds to me like he just got a jump start on living "the life" of an NBA star. Side note: I reckon the FBI should be very careful with this one. News reports state that Dotson called the FBI and asked for help because he was hearing voices in his head and in his sleep. Information learned in their ensuing interview with Dotson led to Waco police filing charges. Don't be surprised to see Dotson's lawyer attempt to get whatever info came from his FBI interview declared inadmissible at trial. At the very least, "hearing voices" gives the defense excellent grounds for an insanity plea. 5. The Eiffel Tower is Burning The Eiffel Tower is easily my favorite landmark in the world. I was just up on top of that thing a little over a month ago, and I gotta wonder... what the heck up there is flamable? Seems like it was mostly iron and steel. I'd bet it was some mechanical fire having to do with the elevators or a power generator. Monday, July 21, 2003
LIBERAL MEDIA??? If the media was really so liberally biased, the title of this article would be... North Korea: The First WMD Crisis. Sunday, July 20, 2003
THIS SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING!!! This pisses me off! The world asked America to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians and we did nothing. Nothing! So Bush is "still deciding" whether or not to send in a small U.S. force. Damn that Cowboy. And damn you too Liberia... for not having oil under your soil. If you had, the good ol' U.S. of A. would have been in country a looooong time ago. Saturday, July 19, 2003
Thursday, July 17, 2003
HMMM... Something tells me that this isn't exactly the seal of approval Bush and Rummy were expecting from the rank and file... "If Donald Rumsfeld was here, I'd ask him for his resignation." Obviously, much of the talk these days is about the "16 words" and all the bundled explanations for how bad intelligence got into a presidential speech to the world. However, when the administration's police action in Iraq finally crumbles, and if Bush's bid at re-election fails, I'd point to quotes like the one above as the reason. When fighting began, critics of Bush policy chose to temper their protests for fear of offending not only troops in the line of fire, but also their families here in the States. Whether blinded by patriotism, or for love of family, these two groups of people were the administration's staunchest supporters. By failing to construct a decent plan for the occupation of Iraq, the administration has begun to alienate these most loyal constituents. Forcing troops to extend tours of service has not only angered the rank and file and their families, it has forced them to start questioning the competencey of their leadership. "President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said 'bring it on.' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead." What the administraion has failed to realize is the significance of having reserves in a combat theatre. Obviously, these forces fought bravely, but they are comprised of individuals who have lives and families outside the armed forces. They do not depend on the military to feed and dress their children. Many have high-paying civilian jobs waiting for them upon their return. I don't mean to argue that the regular military forces might not feel the same way, but reservists have relatively little to lose by openly criticizing U.S. leaders. Unfortunately for the adminstration, its 2003, not the mid-1960's, which so many of the current policy-makers used to cut their teeth on international conflict, or as case study. Many of the troops on the ground have more immediate contact with family back home. It's not a hand-written letter once a month, its an e-mail weekly, if not daily. This means that Mom and Dad back home get a bit more insight into the daily emotions of their sons and daughters in harm's way. Once little Johnny or Jane sends a few e-mails home telling family that faith in Bush and his staff has been lost, loved ones back home will start to change their tune about their support for the president. Not even the most conservative of presidential supporters will continue to support military action when his own son or daughter tells him that morale and hope among the grunts are low and lost. Bush's Iraq policy, and I use that term very loosely, has always enjoyed the political cover of a patriotic fighting force. It is easy to claim the side of virtue and righteousness when even your most vocal critics must qualify their complaints as to not showing a lack of support for the troops. "16 words" will not cost Bush his legacy. The Bush Doctrine and the Bush Presidency will lose its credibility and support when U.S. forces and their families change their tune from "Bring 'em on" to "Bring 'em home". Wednesday, July 16, 2003
UH... MR. SECRETARY. CAN I GET YOUR COMMENTS... On this! Morale among the grunts was destined to take a turn the moment they were informed they would not be going home as soon as planned. But check out the end of the first paragraph... "It ain't right for the folks here. You know, there are a whole lot of our girls getting pregnant just so they can go home quick." Of course, that may just be a rumor among the ranks, but I'd sure like to be watching when some reporter asked Donald Rumsfeld about it with live cameras rolling. I have a cousin who joined the Army some years ago, and it wasn't too long before she was carrying around the child of a fellow soldier. Whether they are practicing safer sex or not, pregnancies will happen when you drop 150,000 men and women into a hot zone. Surely there were pregnant female soldiers being sent home quietly from the Persian Gulf before the hostilities even began. I'd like compare the number of female soldiers that got pregnant back in January and February, when they all thought this thing was gonna be over in a month or two, with the number that got/get pregnant in June, July and August. I'd bet that as the summer set in, and the troops realized things wouldn't be as peachy as their leaders initially led them to believe, the number of female soldiers that "forgot" to take their birth control probably increased. Just a hunch... (Props to Alina Stefanescu for the link) Tuesday, July 15, 2003
WHO SAYS ASHCROFT AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ARE ABOVE THE LAW??? They do! The pathetic part is that this is going to become a pattern for all the "evil-doers" lined up to be tried in civilian courts. The Justice Department figures that if they can't try these people on their own terms, they'll just hand them off to the military tribunals to ensure they get the result the administration is looking for. So, regardless of what they say, DOJ is hoping judge Brinkema dismisses the case. I hope that Brinkema refrains from dismissing the case and simply excludes so much of the government's evidence that a conviction would become difficult. What better way to stick it to Ashcroft et al than to keep it in her court and punish them so severely for refusing her order that they suffer the embarassment of being unable to convict their most famous "conspirator"? One other thought to consider... If the DOJ gets its way on this case, who of material significance is Moussaoui supposed to call on in his defense? Anyone who knows anything that might help Moussaoui is either incarcerated, and thus, deemed too big a threat by the DOJ to be allowed to testify, or they are not in custody. Say you were a free citizen and you knew something that could exonerate Moussaoui. Would you come forward? Hell no! You'd be thrown in jail without charge or trial and labeled an "enemy combatant". Afterall, Ashcroft figures that anyone who associates with an "enemy combatant" must be an "enemy combatant" themselves. Is there anyone out there of material importance that the DOJ would allow to testify? BUT ALAS... A SILVER LINING FOR BUSH... So long as people like me are talking about the "16 words" fiasco, we're not talking about North Korea! Monday, July 14, 2003
WHO TO BLAME??? THEN... The most troubling aspect of the Iraq-uranium-Niger firestorm that is sweeping Washington right now is not that Bush misled America. Afterall, if people out there were actually niave enough to believe that the Bush administration wouldn't lie to the public, there is nothing I can do to help those masses blinded by "patriotism". If they thought government wouldn't lie to Americans about an issue as serious as war, pick up a history book and check out a little chapter called "Vietnam". No, the most frustrating aspect is the timing. Why now? Why is the inaccuracy of Bush's State of the Union speech only making headlines now? The simple answer... Congress and the media. More accurately, it was the failure of either the Congress or the media to do their jobs. Bush's African uranium claims were virtually laughed at almost immediately by the rest of the world. Check out these links here, here, and here. Most importantly, notice the dateline of these stories. If the rest of the world easily discounted the intelligence Bush relied on, why was that not headline news in the United States before the war? Members of Congress were worried about being re-elected. Typical of the lot, few wanted to go against a popular President and a popular war for fear that being labeled "unpatriotic" might cost them votes. Funny how Robert Byrd of West Virginia was treated with such disdain by politicians and the press. How prophetic does the "crazy ol' man" sound now? I am most disappointed by the media. Right now, the popular theory criticizing administration hawks centers on the notion that they came to a conclusion first, then ignored the spectrum of intelligence in order to hand-pick reports and intel that supported their conclusion. What is apparent to me is that the media did the same. The war was gonna happen, they were already embedded, nothing was going to stop the ratings bonanza that was about to befall the news industry. Why should we possibly risking stopping all of this by doing our jobs? News organizations spent millions of dollars on technology that was designed to allow Americans see events unfold in real-time. Virtually nothing was spent on checking to see if the war was just. Look at the third article I linked above. It is a relatively obscure wire story published on-line by ABC. Apparently, that's all a President using fasle intelligence to justify war seemed to merit back on March 7. Now that the war is over and all the journalists are back in their studios, some of them have finally started doing some actual work. Ponder this... the only reason we are really seeing this issue explode is because no WMD have been found. What if we had found WMD. People wouldn't be asking a thing about the Niger-uranium passage in the State of the Union speech. A lie by the administration would have been given a free pass. Journalists should have been dissecting every aspect of the speech after it happened. If at any point, one of Bush's "reasons" was found to be untrue, it should have been front page news and the most talked about issue of the day. Remember this press conference Bush held March 6th? Questioners were chosen in advance and reporters weren't allowed to ask follow-up questions. Nevertheless, not a single correspondent touched on the uranium issue. All it would have taken was... "Mr. President, what is your reaction to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei dismissing as laughable coaltion claims trying to tie Iraq to uranium in Niger?" Imagine Bush trying to dance around that one. Powell had already thought the intel dodgy enough not to include it in his presentation to the U.N. one month prior. If Bush had repeated his belief in the intel, then it would have been him doing so on his own. As it stands now, CIA Director George Tenet is falling on his sword and saying he should have not allowed the now infamous "16 words" to remain in the State of the Union speech. If Bush had repeated the Niger-uranium claims at the March 6th "press conference", then the White House would have been on its own to defend Bush repeating the erroneous claim two months later. By March 7th, the media was already embedded, and thus, in bed with the Bush administration. Perhaps getting objective journalism to the eyes and ears of Americans was too much to ask. AND NOW... George Tenet has taken a dive that would make a soccer star proud. Should he have made sure that the Niger-uranium intel was not in the State of the Union speech? Sure. But that doesn't make him the only one to blame. When it was debunked, why didn't the administration cease its claims that Iraq was in search of uranium for a nuclear weapons program? Much of the spin being put out by "senior administration officials" has been insulting. They claim that since the British actually did believe that the Iraq-Niger connection was true, and Bush attributed the intelligence to Britain in the speech, then his "16 words" were "technically correct". Excuse me? Are they saying that as long as the President attributes his claims to some other source, then he can adopt them as truth? Even if our own intelligence community knows that the claims are not true? If that's the case, then if it suited his purpose, Bush could walk around saying things like... the world is flat... nicotine is not addictive... the Holocaust never happened... O.J. Simpson is out looking for the real killers. I'm sure Bush could find studies or other sources of "intelligence" that would support such claims. In the end, the saga of a misleading claim made before the American people and all citizens of the world is a sad one. Once Bush made the claim, a dilligent media or Congress should have informed the masses that it was not true. Could it have stopped a war? Probably not. But it would have opened a few more eyes and minds to the notion that other intelligence might be erroneous. Before the bombs started falling, Americans might have joined the rest of the world in questioning the Bush administration.... Maybe Saddam doesn't have all the weapons our President is telling us he has? If Bush is wrong about the uranium, maybe he's wrong about other stuff too? The uranium might very well prove to be the only thing Bush et al were wrong about. Then again, no WMD have been found thus far. Unfortunately, the past performance of the administration, Congress, and the media leaves me wondering whether that will even matter at all. FACTS, FACTS AND MORE FACTS... A great article in today's WaPo about Snapple caps. How funny is the bit about the little boy who can lick his elbow? As a guy who recently wisped his girlfriend away to Paris to propose by the Eiffel Tower, even I was impressed by the creativity of the guy who used a Snapple cap to propose to his love. I'm glad to see there are still stories out there about the not-so-important things in life that make people's worlds a little bit brighter. CHECK ME IF I'M WRONG HERE... But I'm starting to see a pattern here... here and here. No wonder we can't catch Saddam and bin Laden... our esteemed coalition can't even hold on to the terrorists we do capture. Thursday, July 10, 2003
WHEN DID MYLES BRAND TAKE OVER THE USGA??? After reading this, I'm wondering if the NCAA and the USGA weren't separated at birth. DID IRAQI FORCES EVER ATTACK ANYONE DURING OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM??? This may just be semantics, but why is it that whenever Iraqi forces kill or wound coalition forces, its always an "ambush"? Certainly, "ambush" might be the best way to describe the killings in recent weeks. Troops guarding checkpoints or walking on routine patrols and suddenly getting dropped by snipers definitely qualifies as an "ambush". But what about during the height of the fighting back in late March? Every time coalition forces were attacked, American media outlets referred to the engagements as "ambushes". Is this just an attempt to belittle the capabilities of the opposition? America has the strongest military in the world. If some pissant Iraqis are killing our boys and girls, they must be sneaking up on them and "ambushing" them. That's the only possible explanation, right? For example, look at this story of Jessica Lynch and the Army's 509th Maintenance Company. We all know the story. They got lost... separated from their convoy... then the Iraqis "ambushed" them. It's right there in the headline (Interestingly, the URL uses the word "attack"). Those darn Iraqis are so evil they'll even pick on one of our maintenance units? But hold on. Read the story... In the dark early morning hours of March 23, elements of the convoy, which had become separated from the other vehicles and troops, crossed through the center of Nasiriya and emerged at the north of the city before realizing a mistake had been made, the report said. The soldiers in those elements had experienced some small arms fire in their trek through the city, it said. A decision was made to make a U-turn and go back through the city to find the correct route. The convoy was already plagued by vehicles running out of gas or getting stuck in the sand, and the distances between vehicles increased with each new problem. Iraqis also had placed debris and disabled vehicles in the roadway to block U.S. troops. As some elements of the convoy searched for a turn they had missed earlier, they came under a "torrent" of fire from Iraqis for as long as 90 minutes, the draft said. The 507th drove through hostile territory once, then decided to turn around and drive right through it again!!! This is not a slam on the soldiers that fought that day. Even though they made a fateful decision, many of them fought and died with valor. It even appears that Pfc. Patrick Miller, who seemed so sheepish and scared in the hostage video that was broadcast worldwide, kicked some serious ass during the firefight. My problem is with the American media. How could what happened to them on their second spin through Nasiriya qualify as an ambush? They were in a war zone. Nasiriya was an enemy stronghold. They drove through it not once, but TWICE! When the U.S. military invades a country and comes face-to-face with the enemy, that enemy isn't "ambushing" anybody. It's called fighting back. People never say the Germans "ambushed" the Allies on the beaches of Normandy. U.S. troops didn't die as a result of being "ambushed" at Anzio. What happened to the 507th was sad. Those men and women weren't part of a forward unit, prepared to mix it up with the enemy. But that being said, they weren't "ambushed" by anybody either. By continuing to call the events of that day an "ambush", the American media perpetuates the idea that invading U.S. troops who come home in body bags are victims of duplicitous evil, rather than simply casualties of a publicly-supported war. Wednesday, July 09, 2003
TOO FUNNY... Step 1. Go to www.google.com Step 2. Type in "weapons of mass destruction" (no quotes) Step 3. Click the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button Step 4. Read the error message you get very carefully OH NO!!! This is easily the worst news I've heard all week. I've said it before and I will say it again... Claudio Reyna is the most overrated player in U.S. soccer history. He can never be relied upon to help the Yanks win big games. Heck, if last summer's World Cup is any indication, he can't even be counted on to play in big games! After wimping out of the Portugal game, "Captain America" played four games in Korea. Other than a workman-like cross in the Mexico game, what did he have to show for it? Look at the tape of the Germany game. Reyna was flat-out beaten a countless times. If the Germans had any better luck finishing, they would have netted two more golas all on account of Reyna's inability to stay with his mark. But Reyna is a UVA guy, and we all know the allegiance Bruce Arena shows his old Cavaliers (see: Jeff Agoos). Reyna might be an able role player, someone to insert at certain points in a game, but a stalwart to hang World Cup hopes on? Never. The longer he stays in a starting role the U.S., the longer it will take the Americans to develop another true star in the midfield. The U.S. is at a pivitol point in the development of a world class national team. To waste the next three years of preparation on a player who has a track record of abandoning the team when he is needed most would be a tragedy. Afterall, we wouldn't want to see another strained labia sideline "Captain America" in Germany in 2006. Tuesday, July 08, 2003
THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!! This is simply the most damning piece of information that I have seen relative to the Bush administration and its hawkish decision-makers. How come this guy wasn't all over the Sunday morning chat-fests BEFORE the fighting started? TOO LITTLE TOO LATE... This is supposed to be news now? I've lamented the failings of pre-Iraqi police action America already. But that doesn't mean that I won't repeat myself. This intelligence was laughed at immediately after Bush cited it. Bush had his war plans and he wasn't going to stray. The only people who failed the American people are the media and Bush's political opposition who went along with him for the ride. This story was there long before bombs started falling. The problem was that certain media outlets and massive amounts of elected officials were too scared to bring it to light. Monday, July 07, 2003
KOBE BRYANT... A funny thing happened to me when I first heard the news that Kobe Bryant had been accused of sexual assault. With a sigh of relief, I muttered, "Finally!" Kobe Bryant is probably one of the most curious sports stars coasting through America right now. Curious because despite his rings and his resume, he is not beloved. With all his talent, with all his charisma, with all of his drop-your-drink dunks, he is, to put it simply, not easy to love. When LeBron James signed his $90 million shoe deal recently, people asked why it seemed he had more street cred than Bryant. Kids want to buy the sneaks of guys like King James and Allen Iverson long before they drop their coin to be like Kobe. Strangely, this is just a fact of life. Heck, Nike even agrees! James' deal was for $90 million, and they signed Kobe for somewhere around $45 million. But I digress. My theory is that Kobe is not beloved because he didn't have to suffer through any challenges to win his titles. They came to easily for the public to really appreciate. Perhaps even too easily for Kobe to appreciate. Sure, his game is a mirror of Michael's but we never saw Kobe toil on a bad team before finally contributing to a long-awaited title. And we never saw him get his butt-kicked either. I can remember seeing the Pistons and the Knicks slam Jordan and Pippen every time they went to the hole. Those were brawls that Jordan and Pippen eventually won. It took a couple of seasons of bruised buns and egos, but they got there. That's what made them so beloved when they got there. For one reason or another, Kobe has never been the target of thug-like defensive schemes. Why? I've often lamented that if I were an NBA coach facing Bryant and the Lakers in the playoffs, I would instruct the 12th manon my bench to foul Kobe hard when he drove to the basket. Not because I would want to hurt him physically, but because I would want to hurt him emotionally. I have seen Bryant take hard fouls and get up looking for a little immediate retribution. If he thinks he's that tough, let him take a swing at my bench-warmer then watch the rest of the series suspended and in street clothes. This same "toughness" that Kobe likes to display is another reason he is not beloved. He skys to the hoop, wows the crowd with an uncontested monster slam, the lets out a primal scream like someone just stole his Happy Meal. Why? What is a millionaire, three-time champion so pissed off about? I can't relate. Magic is another Laker legend who stepped right in next to a dominant big man and won immediate titles. Did he bruise and bleed for those rings like Michael and Scottie? No. But at least he looked like he appreciated that fact that he didn't have to. You live a dream life Kobe, forcing yourself to smile about it might just make you and yours a wee bit happier. Time will tell if Kobe really did anything wrong the other night in Colorado. Call it a hunch, but something tells me this whole thing is some kind of set-up and that he did nothing wrong. But the experience still has value. Kobe has always seemed to consider himself better than the rest of the NBA in more ways than just skill. Finally he might have learned that when "work" requires getting paid boatloads of money to shoot a ball through a hoop, smiling like he enjoys it might just help America enjoy him. CANNONBALL COMING!!! "The man's a menace!" Sounds like Jayson Blair even scared the humor out of some folks. Thursday, July 03, 2003
ON LIBERIA... Liberia presents an interesting test for the Bush administration and the Fox News-watching public. They have changed their tune about our reasons for invading Iraq and now accept that "liberating Iraq" was a good enough reason for putting U.S. soldiers in harm's way. America ended the rape, torture and murder that was the regime of Saddam Hussein, so that's good enough for the GOP and the neoconservatives. By backing away from the importance of WMD, the administration might have unknowingly painted itself into a corner. Pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was U.S. practice to ignore murder, rape and tyranny, as long as it was taking place in a nation that had no WMD. "Though deplorable, they don't threaten us, so we're gonna leave them alone". By lying now and saying that the invasion of Iraq was about the liberation of the Iraqi people, the worm can of other nations with terrible dictators was opened. Enter Liberia. Here is a country in desperate need of relief from over a decade of killing and strife. And not just any country mind you... an English-speaking, former democracy partially founded by freed slaves from America. The capital, Monrovia, is even named after one of the most pivitol men in U.S. history, James Monroe. I'm not sure I'd call it a former U.S. colony, but if it looks like a colony and used to govern like a colony, well.... then... you decide. But here's a clue... Liberia... hmmm... doesn't that sound an awful lot like one of the principles the good ol' U.S. of A. was founded on? Unlike Iraq, Liberians have had democracy. They've tasted it. And now they want it back! Should we send troops? I think so. It is clear to me that if we claim that our mission in Iraq was about stability and democracy and not WMD, then we can't deny Liberia the small amount of support it needs to attain those same goals. Afterall, we are talking about a force less than one percent the size of what we sent to Iraq. I hear the talk about avoiding Liberia because we don't want another Mogadishu. To those folks, I say wake up! We already have another Mogadishu... it's called Baghdad. We're losing what, a troop a day? If you supported invading Iraq and claim that not finding WMD doesn't matter, then you have to support helping Liberia. Because its all about ending brutal dictatorships, right? It's all about ending rape and murder. Then you should be all about supporting Operation Liberate Liberia. HERE HE GOES AGAIN... "Bring 'em on." For those of you out there hoping the police action in Iraq might still turn out well, you might as well give up now. With those three simple words, George W. Bush has sealed the fate of U.S. ground forces in Iraq. Doesn't Bush ever learn? As soon as he "goes Texas" with his talk and rhetoric, his plans fail miserably. A little review of a post from this very web site back on March 19, 2003... TEXAS FOLD 'EM... Will someone please tell George Bush Jr. to stop using his little Texas euphamisms! His Administration is alledegly full of smart people. One of them should put him in check. Every time he goes all Texas with his speech, he ends up looking the fool... "We want him dead or alive... doesn't matter." That one has worked out real well hasn't it. "Show us your cards." Tries to go the route of the tough poker player, but ends up folding before the final cards are even dealt! And it's not like a great amount of time went by before he was made to eat his "show their cards" words. Four days. Four days from calling everyone's bluff to folding in hopes of having enough chips to stay in the game. And now, he gives us "Bring 'em on." Ladies and gentlemen, you can start your clocks, because the only question now is whether or not Bush will pull bloodied U.S. forces out of Iraq himself, or wait for the next U.S. president to stop the carnage. Tuesday, July 01, 2003
NBA FREE AGENTS... As of midnight last night, NBA free-agents can begin shopping their services to the various franchises around the league. When it comes to free-agent athletes, there always seems to be just two kinds... those that go where the biggest paycheck lures them, and those who truly look for a good basketball fit giving them the best chance to win a championship. I don't think I have to really comment on which type of free-agent BiteyTheShark prefers. This season, it all seems so crystal clear. There are two unrestricted players who can really turn a franchise around... Jason Kidd and Jermaine O'Neal. What these two guys don't seem to realize is how cosmic their timing is. Has there ever been, and will there ever be a time when the defending NBA champion has lucrative amounts of money to spend on free-agent help. It'd be sickening if it weren't so darn Admirable. Talk about the best front office in sports! Sure, the Yankees can buy titles, but they don't have a salary cap to avoid. Sure, San Antonio doesn't have the glitz of L.A. or NYC, but why not win multiple rings in Texas, then spend your off-season frolicking wherever you please? That brings me back to Kidd and O'Neal. Both players have expressed shades of interest in staying in Jersey and Indianapolis. I can respect that. But there's only one reason why people are talking about both these guys joining the Spurs. Money. There's an infatuation around the NBA with guys getting "max contracts". It's sad really. Both these guys could go to San Antonio, make $6 million a year, and win a fistful of rings. Wake up guys!!! It's about the grandeur of your legacy, not the grandeur of your Lexus. BLOG MAPS... What a cool idea! You can read more about this concept here, but I just think it is great because it offers readers a bit more perspective about a blogger without sacrificing too much privacy. I'm gonna try to sign up today! |
