Tuesdays with Greg
Although Tuesday Morning Quarterback won't be back until August, Greg Easterbrook has rescued us from this time of football-lessness with a column analyzing the recent NFL Draft on NFL.com.

Tony

It Begins...
James Ridgeway of the Village Voice advises Democrats to pull a Torricelli on John Kerry:

With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.

What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual?resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.

If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.

Marc

With spring, comes new life and new unis
The Terps held their annual Spring football game on Saturday, but the biggest news was the unveiling of thier new threads. I first heard about the change from loyal reader E. Nelson of Baltimore, MD on Sunday, but wasn't able to confirm the change until today. The biggest difference between these new unis and the old (which are actually only a few years old; the news uniforms coming as part of a new apparel contract with Under Armor) is the change from stylized numbers to traditional block numbers, the loss of the throwback (and very cool) shoulder stripes and a more extensive use of black.

To be honest, when I first heard that the Terps were changing their unis I feared that black would make more of an appearance, possibly as the main jersey color or the color of the helmet. So I was somewhat relieved by these new duds. In fact, I like the black and gold piping on the jersey, and the addition of the black seam stripe is not bad, just ordinary. Note the addition of a MD flag on the shoulder, also a good move. The jersey looks alot like Miami's jersey's, which isn't bad in and of itself, but I'd like to see something more original. The change from red to black pant stripes (which remained modern) is okay, probaby because of the gold piping around the stripe. I do lament the loss of the shoulder stripes, which I felt, coupled with the modern pant stripes, helped to create a fresh look. I'm generally oppossed to stylized numbers, but these block numbers just look boring on such a dynamic unfirom.

Most importantly, perhaps, is the fact that no change was made to the helmet, which is one of the cooler helmets in college football. So, all in all, these are changes that I can live with. And considering how often uniform changes go from bad to worse (see Bengals, Cincinnati), the new Terps unis are actually pretty good.

Tony

New look Bengals are nothing new
Continuing the modern look first adopted by the Denver Broncos, the Cincinnati Bengals unvieled their new uniforms on Thursday in a gala celebration. The new duds were modeled by Bengals stars Chad Johnson and Carson Palmer, among others. And they are, to say the least, a doozy. (Pics from the fashion show.)

The Bengals have modernized their traditional look with designer numbers and different colored sleeves, complete with bengal stripes. The Bengal-stripping down the leg of the pants has been modernized and a pair of black pants has been added full-time, something they had flirted with last year.

The Bengals also added (unsurprisingly) an alternate orange jersey, to be worn with either the white or (gag) black pants. At this point there's been no mention of orange pants, but, honestly, how far off can that be.

Interestingly enough, no change was made to the helmet, which though unique, has been a target of criticism for Bengal fans and uniform-istas alike for many years.

Now I don't wanna say that these uniforms are ugly, but Eli Manning just announced that he's adding the Bengals to his list of teams he won't sign with.

It's not that these uniforms are just ugly, which they are, it's how ugly and completely unimaginative they are. The new-look Bengals are a mirror of the new-look Broncos, Falcons, Seahawks and Bills.

Except for the days when the Bengals looked like the Browns with the word "Bengals" on their helmets, this team has never had good unfiorms. So if it's always gonna be ugly, why not try for unique. They should take the Bengal stripes all around the jersey, a la the Dallas Knights (who wore a torso-sized red Knight's cross over on a gold jersey) in Any Given Sunday. They'd still be ugly, but at least they'd be original.

Tony

We should have colonized the moon by now, too
This is really neither here nor there, but: Where the hell are our personal jet packs?

We were all promised jet packs, and we're actually way behind schedule. Maybe if scientists spent a little less time "curing disease," and a little more time focused on personal jet propoulsion technology, we'd get some results. It's been, like, fifty years since the end of the second World War, and all we've got to show for it so far is the goddamn Segway, for Christs' sake.

I'm just saying.

Tony

When Did Everyone Go Insane?
Mayor Martin O'Malley is "outraged" and "embarrassed". He has told city officials that "all of our jobs are in jeopardy". So what is the problem that has city government in an uproar?

Yesterday, the entire city learned that, for the first time in 50 years, the current recruit class of the Baltimore Fire Department is all-white.

And how did this reprehensible state of affairs come to pass?

The trouble for the Fire Department arose in November 2002 when the entrance test was last offered and a smaller than usual group took the test. In all, 836 took the test and 434 passed -- making for one of the department's smallest pool of candidates in recent years.

From that list, the Fire Department hired 40 people last year -- including 10 minorities. But when they turned to the list again this year in need of 30 more people, Goodwin said, no minorities were available.

So, to recap: A smaller than average group of people took the entrance test to become a firefighter. Almost half of those taking the test failed. Of those who passed the test, EVERY minority was hired. Then, when 30 more firefighters were needed this year, there were no more eligible minorities left.

Some have said that the above sequence of events was tantamount to "stamping on racial progress and violating the tenets of the Civil Rights Act". So this test must be a racist tool to keep minorities out of the fire department, right? Let's ask Fire Chief William Goodwin:

The department will now give a new civil service test, although Goodwin acknowledged that the one scrapped was a test "that was supposed to be one least adversely impacting minorities."

Maybe it wasn't the test itself that was designed to keep out minorities, but some other aspect of the hiring process?

"Was [the process] fair?" Goodwin asked. "It was absolutely fair. Did we follow all the civil service laws? Absolutely."

My brain hurts. I think Gregory Kane best sums it up:

You want to commit yourself to an asylum when you hear talk like this.

Marc

And the winner of the John Elway Memorial Crybaby Trophy is...
Eli Manning, former Ole Miss quarterback and projected number one pick in this weekend's NFL draft. Manning's father, longtime New Orleans Saints quarterback and fellow Rebel Archie, has contacted the San Diego Chargers through Manning's agent and pressed upon them his desire not to see the Chargers select his son with their first pick overall. Archie, instead, would prefer that his son be drafted by the New York Giants, who currently posses the number four pick overall. The Giants had been attempting a trade with the Chargers over the past couple of weeks, but thus far nothing had been settled. There is no telling whether Manning's declaration will force San Diego's hand, although the Chargers' GM has stated that he will act in accordance with what's best for the team.

I find this whole thing pretty distasteful, honestly, and I'd like to see the Chargers draft Eli out of nothing more than spite, then have him be a big, Leaf-esque bust. If they do opt to kowtow to the elder Manning, it may not be all that bad. There a number of fine quarterbacks on the board after Manning, including Miami of Ohio's Ben Roethlisberger, NC State's Phillip Rivers and J.P. Losman from Tulane. Further, by trading away the number one pick, the Chargers will be able to pick up several prospects, welcome news to a team hurting not only at quarterback, but wide receiver and offensive line as well.

But, honestly, all of this is beside the point. An NFL franchise, and by extension the entire NFL draft, is under seige by an overprotective father who refuses to let his son be a man. Now, I know that Archie toiled in anonymity (not to mention pain) while a member of the beleaguered Saints during the 70s, but that's no excuse for this sort of string-pulling on behalf of his youngest son. The fact of the matter is that playing in the NFL is an honor and a privlege, and not a birthright. But what's more, the fact that the Charger's are struggling is not an excuse to duck them -- it's a reason to seek them out.

There was a time when an athlete would have sought out such a challenge, atacked with gusto and been a better athlete (and a better man) for the struggle. In fact, that time is the very recent past.

Over the past few years the Texans, Lions and Bengals have all selected top college prospects with early draftpicks to be their franchise quarterback. David Carr, Joey Harrington and Carson Palmer, respectivley, all met the challenge of playing for a poor team head-on, and seemed nothing short of enthusiastic at the chance to be "the man" for a club who, in the case of Harrington and Palmer, where among the league's worst, and in Carr's case, hadn't even existed before they selected him.

I'm sure Eli will play in New York next year, it's really a matter of how much it will cost the Giants, in terms of draft picks, at this point. But to see such an overt display of athletes getting their way through whining -- and to see it come as a result of (rather than in spite of) a parent's actions, is more than a little disheartening. Rather than showing Eli the opportunities a challenge like playing for the Chargers presents, he is behaving like so many other parents who over-indulge their children. Instead of teaching their children how to overcome obstacles, most parents these days, like Eli's dad, are busy getting estimates on what it would cost to carpet the entire world.

Tony

Gimme, gimme, gimme
We castigate the elderly on this blog with a regularity usually reserved for obnoxious athletes and corrupt politicians, but are we being fair?

Is it fair to impune an entire generation of people as being selfish, inconsiderate and greedy? Are all old people really out for whatever they can get, feeling no remorse about passing the buck to their children's children and beyond? Is the image of hordes of old people lined up at the government trough, eager to slurp down whatever funds they can get their hands on accurate?

In a word: Yes.

From the Cumberland Times-News:

Prescriptions for seniors should take priority

By: Fred Sanders, Oakland
Monday, April 19, 2004 10:44 AM EDT

While reading your paper this morning. the first thing that caught my eye was "Garrett prescription program in jeopardy." The second thing that caught my eye was "State to help low-income students."

I am not the smartest person in the world, but I do know that when there is a choice between education and seniors getting prescription drugs to keep their health or save their lives this is a no-brainer.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for education and I would like to see every child in the United States get the chance to get a college degree, but I truly think that prescription drugs needs to come first.

The article I read on prescription drugs that Allegany County is going to take a bigger cut than Garrett. In my opinion, seniors should not have to do without food to pay for their drugs.

I did notice the article on "State to help low income students" did not specify how much state money was involved.

How does this sound for senior citizens? Cut prescription drugs (Federal Government says we will give you $600 towards drugs, thanks), Social Security in trouble, Medicare running out of money. Sounds like a bright future for seniors and the ones that will be seniors in the next 10 years.

Wowy, wow, wow!

Tony

As a Catholic, I'm obligated to care about this
The Shroud of Turin may be an original after all, according to scientists working on the ancient relic. Long believed to be the burial cloth of Christ, the Shroud of Turin has more recently been believed to have been a piece of artwork, possibly produced by Leonardo Da Vinci (that means from Vinci, Jerry). Now, scientists, who have until recently only studied the front of the Shroud, have discovered corresponding markings on the back that could indicate the Shroud's authenticity.

Is this discovery merely a part of the PR campaing for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ? Could be. I mean, I did just order a Shroud of Turin bedspread off their website.

Tony

Kerry Channels Kissinger
I can't believe it. John Kerry said something that makes a ton of sense, and that I wholeheartedly agree with (link via Kausfiles):

Sen. John. F. Kerry on Wednesday stressed that the chief interest of the U.S. should be to build a stable Iraq, but not necessarily a democratic one -- a view at odds with President Bush's vision of the troubled country's political future.

"I have always said from day one that the goal here ... is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told reporters after conducting a town hall meeting at the City College of New York in Harlem. "I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms."

I have been bitching for years about the fact that US foreign policy has been shackled by our own pro-democracy rhetoric ever since the Wilson administration. I really never though that John Kerry would be the major-party presidential candidate to come out and say it.

Why is it such a sin to admit that American national interests do not always coincide with democracy? How would it have been worse if we has found a reliable Shiite dictator to run Iraq six months ago? But the Bush people, predictably, reacted with phony outrage:

Marc Racicot, the former Montana governor who is chairman of Bush's reelection campaign, said, "There is now even further evidence of the fact that Sen. Kerry continues with an approach that is cynical and defeatist, and it's embraced within a political attack that is seriously undermining our efforts in Iraq and in the war on terror."

I say phony, because no one who controls the levers of power in the foreign policy establishment really cares if the guys running the Chiles and South Koreas of the world were democratically elected, but they feel (especially presidents) the need to bloviate about "the people" and "self-determination".

So, huzzah to Kerry for stating an obvious, but historically denied truth - and boo in advance for changing his position two days from now.

Marc

Kevin Smith not responsible for these "Jersey Girls"
Why, if there were thousands of deaths as a result of the 9-11 terror attack, do we keep hearing from the same four women from New Jersey? The Jersey Girls, as they are called, are everywhere. They are widely credited with the creation of the 9-11 panel in the first place, and these days are most often found alongside MSNBC's Chris Matthews. And their intent is straightforward -- to lay the majority of blame on the terror attack on President Bush and his administration.

Howard Kurtz's Media Notes takes a look at a couple of items critical of these increasingly media-savvy women. One such item, plucked from The Wall Street Journal is Dorothy Rabinowitz's online media log.

From the article:

Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."

Matthews got reaction to the Rabinowitz piece from two of the Jersey Girls on MSNBC today. Read it here

Tony.

More fun than Plinko
It's the Washington Post's Veep-O-Matic. A handy dandy tool to help you select the best running mate for John Kerry. It's as simple to use as it is fun. The Veep-O-Matic lists several traits that a potential running mate should have, and you select the top five that you feel are the most important. The highly sophisticated Veep-O-Matic computers will then calculate which potential running mates match your criteria, spitting out an answer within seconds.

Sounds too good to be true? I thought so too, until I tried it out myself. I selected "Hispanic", "Gubnatorial Experience", "Southern", "Live or Work Outside the Beltway" and "From a Battleground State." This yielded, as you might have guessed, New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson, who matched four of my five criterion.

And if you call today, you can try this amazing discovery for the low, low introductory payment of nothing down and no payments until November.

So what are you waiting for? Act now and receive this Space Pen 3000 free. Yes it's the Space Pen 3000. Use it in bed, use it in the car, at the office on the john, even in an anti-gravity chamber. That's right the Space Pen 3000 -- for all your anti-gravity writing needs. That's Space Pen 3000.

Tony

Bush's performance rankles one supporter*
Last night, President Bush held his first prime time press conference since the Iraqi war started little over a year ago. I was disappointed, to say the least, with Bush's performance. I was hopeful that this would be an opportunity for Bush to reaffirm our committment to the nation-building efforts in Iraq, to express to the American people that the road ahead would indeed be long and painful, but was undoubtedly right and to provide a sense of strength and resolve about the Iraqi war through his words and demeanor -- to be, in a word, presidential. Bush did none of this. He looked no more polished in this press conference than he did during the election of 2000.

Though he began with a confident, 17-minute overview of the situation in Iraq, he seemed out of sorts at times as he searched for words to answer often hostile questions and sometimes lapsed into awkward pauses. Of the U.S. presence in Iraq, he said: "They're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied, either."

When one questioner asked about his biggest mistake since the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush shook his head twice as he searched for an answer.

"I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet," Bush said. "I would've gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein."

These are not the words that I want to hear from my president as America is engaged in a bloddy, costly, lengthy and divisive war. Words are important. Oratory is important. Bush had an opportunity last night to show the world that America stands tall in the face of strong oppossition, both foreign and domestic. I yearned to hear that our resolve is not merely a corollary to our overwhelming military might, but because we toil toward a righteous goal. Bush could have made that argument last night. He chose not to. Perhaps because it is an argument that takes tremendous poltical courage to make -- courage this administration seems to lack.

The president turned animated when asked whether the Iraq war would be worthwhile even if he was not reelected. He replied: "I don't plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they'll stay with me. They understand the stakes. Look, nobody likes to see dead people on their television screens. I don't. It's a tough time for the American people to see that. It's gut-wrenching."

This final passage bothers me most of all. How refreshing would it have been for Bush to say something along the lines that this Iraqi war is bigger than reelection? That the goals of instilling democracy in the hopes that it can help bring stability to such a volatile region is larger than the goal of any one American politician. A risky political statement? Maybe. But it would be the words of a president and not merely a leader of a political party.

Bush's performance last night belies the one nagging problem I have with this administration -- that all goals are political, that every action of this administration is calculated for every possible poltical benefit. In short, that the number one objective of the Bush White House is to ensure that Bush stays in the White House. That's no way to run a presidency or a foreign policy. And it's certainly no way to run a country.

I'm not so naive as to think that this mode of opperations is by any means new to the White House, but as we face a dangerous and uncertain future -- as the threat of terrorism is real and immediate -- I am demanding more from my president and my government.

Tony

*me.

Alternate History
Gregg Easterbrook imagines what the world would be like had the Bush administration launched an attack on Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11:

Washington, April 9, 2004.
A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.

Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.

On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.

Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill."

Read the whole thing.

Marc

PA church celebrates the Risen Christ by scourging small, woodland creature
A church in Glassport, Pennsylvania, a small community about ten miles southeast of Pittsburgh, held an Easter celebration this past Saturday at Glassport Stadium that drew criticism from a number of angry and confused parents.

The Glassport Assembly of God's Saturday production included actors on stage simulating the crucifixion of Jesus Christ by whipping their costumed youth minister, who was dressed as the Easter Bunny. Children reportedly ran out of the church crying, and a number of parents were left wondering what was going on.

The whipping incident, though disturbing, was not all that was in store for those in attendence.

Performers broke eggs meant for an Easter egg hunt and also portrayed a drunken man and a self-mutilating woman, said Jennifer Norelli-Burke, another parent who saw the show in Glassport, a community about 10 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

I can understand an Evangelical Church's desire to distance Easter from secularized tradition and attempt to instill in its followers, particularly their youth, that Easter is about the death and, most importantly, the resurrection of Jesus. But I don't see, in any way, how whipping a costumed Easter Bunny accomplishes this goal. It only serves to confuse children and their parents, and reinforce the stereotype that evangelicals are just this side of lunatic. I can't even imagine how this idea got out of its larva stage. I mean, did someone, in a meeting, say: "I've got a great idea about how we can show that Easter is about Jesus and not the Easter Bunny -- let's dress someone up in an Easter Bunny costume and whip them in a way reminiscent of the scourging of Christ."? And if so, was the response to this idea really: "Whip the Easter Bunny during a church service: Brilliant!"?

That's one for the "What the Fuck?" file

Tony