Question: Marcus Vick, you’ve just be kicked off of the Virigina Tech football team, what are you going to do next?
Answer: Pull a gun on three teenagers and get arrested!!!

Guestblogger: David Kreutz

The Cincinnati Bengals were knocked out of the playoffs Sunday after franchise quarterback (and 2002 Heisman Trophy winner from USC) Carson Palmer tore his ACL. Major bummer.

The Steelers player who hit Palmer says he feels bad, which you could actually tell watching the replay — he was looking at Palmer lying on the field and clearly had an “Oh, sh*t” look.

A magnitude 6.7 earthquake struck Greece earlier today; the epicenter was 120 miles south of Athens, and 23 miles beneath the sea floor. It was felt as far away as Cairo and Amman, although the worst of it was felt in Greece. Amazingly, there are currently no deaths reported, despite the collapse of numerous buildings. It is believed that its depth and offshore location is what saved the area from further damage:

Seismologists said if the quake had been centered closer to shore, the damage could have been catastrophic.

[…]

“It was a very powerful quake which shook all of Greece. There have been dozens of aftershocks, four with a magnitude of 5,” said Athens Geodynamic Institute head Giorgos Stavrakakis. “The quake occurred deep undersea and that’s what saved us.”

Also, even though this was an undersea event, there were thankfully no tsunamis reported either. :)

Posted by Brian (Briandot)

Recently, while Becky and I were staying with the Zaks during the run-up to our wedding, we got into a rollicking family debate with my brothers-in-law about Cindy Sheehan. I was frustrated at the time, because I was feeling inarticulate that day, and thus I didn’t express myself as well as I could have. I felt that I “lost” the argument, even though I feel just as strongly that I am right on the merits. The issue returned to the forefront of my mind the other night as I watched David Letterman’s contentious interview with Bill O’Reilly, and again just now when a TV show Becky and I were watching showed clips from that interview. So I figured I’d take a crack at addressing it here.

The bottom line is this: I have nothing against Cindy Sheehan personally. Indeed, I have the utmost sympathy for her awful loss. I don’t agree with her politics one iota, but that has nothing to do with my level of compassion for her plight.

But I do have a problem — a very big problem — with the attitude that many anti-war folks, and some elements in the media, have taken toward Cindy Sheehan. Specifically, it is frequently said or implied that Cindy Sheehan’s statements, opinions and actions are somehow above reproach because of the personal tragedy of her son’s death. She is the mother of a slain soldier, the thinking goes, therefore we dare not criticize her or take issue in any way with what she says. “Who are we” to question Cindy Sheehan? Letterman made this explicit when he asked O’Reilly: “How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?”

Excuse me?! Cindy Sheehan willingly stepped into the public eye and made a whole bunch of controversial statements about the Iraq war. She effectively became the spokeswoman for the anti-war movement in this country, for heaven’s sake. At the moment she did that, she invited those who disagree with her to “take exception with [her] motivation and…position.” That’s how public debate works. Like all Americans, Cindy Sheehan has the right to her opinion, and she has the right to express that opinion publicly, if she wishes. She does NOT have the right to be insulated from criticism while expressing her (highly controversial) opinion. No one has that right, at least not once they enter the public arena.

If this faulty attitude toward Sheehan were merely expressed in the occasional David Letterman diatribe, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But it’s far more common than that. The “how dare you criticize her” line is frequently used as a bludgeon with which to bash those on the Right who find her positions objectionable and her motiviations highly suspect (more on that in a moment). Indeed, in my opinion, the idea of Cindy Sheehan being “above reproach” is the very reason she has become so prominent in the media, and so successful and disseminating her message. I believe the anti-war movement made Sheehan its spokeswoman precisely because she is difficult to criticize without seeming callous. This is an extremely cynical tactic, and I absolutely deplore it.

Letterman said to O’Reilly, “I’m very concerned about people like yourself who don’t have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ.” But demanding “nothing but endless sympathy” — i.e., just listen to her, don’t respond unless you agree — for someone who has injected herself into the public debate is an outrageous perversion of the concept of political dialogue and the marketplace of ideas. Saying that compassionate people cannot criticize Cindy Sheehan is the moral equivalent of saying that patriotic Americans cannot criticize the war in Iraq. Asking, “Who are we to criticize Cindy Sheehan?” is no better or worse than asking, “Who are we to criticize President Bush?” Both attitudes are utterly logically specious, absolutely outrageous, and downright un-American. Neither attitude has any place in civilized, educated discussion.

Okay, you might respond, so Sheehan’s opinions are obviously fair game; Letterman clearly went too far when he wondered how O’Reilly can possibly take exception with her “position” on the war. But shouldn’t her “motivations” indeed be off-limits? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Because Sheehan has been put forward in the manner that she has — her prominence being premised on the notion that she opposes the war because she lost a son in Iraq — it is indeed crucial to look at her past positions to discern whether this premise is correct. And, of course, the facts show that it is not. Sheehan was a vocal member of the far left long before her son’s death, and if he hadn’t died, there is little doubt she would be against the war anyway; she’d just be a far less prominent anti-war activist.

Why is that relevant? First of all, because it shows that the above-mentioned premise underlying Sheehan’s prominence is a lie. But more broadly than that, Sheehan’s status as a long-time anti-war advocate is relevant for the same reason that Congressman Murtha’s past status as a military hawk was relevant to his sponsorship of last month’s big anti-war resolution. Past actions and motivations are highly relevant to determining the importance of a person’s present statements and actions. If Joe Lieberman came out against the war tomorrow — or, alternatively, if Dennis Kucinich came out in favor of it — their past positions would obviously be relevant, and would make their new positions far more newsworthy.

By the same token, Sheehan’s present statements against the war are made less newsworthy by her past statements on the issue. (It would be a bit like if Kucinich “came out against the war.” Is that front-page news?) It is provably false that her son’s death “turned” Sheehan against the war, and to discuss her present position without revealing this fact is fraudulent, because it creates the false impression that she is part of some rising tide of gold-star mothers against the war. Cindy Sheehan isn’t part of any rising political tide; she’s a member of a political extreme, and you cannot sensibly discuss her place in the Iraq debate without considering this fact.

Moreover, Sheehan’s radical politics are relevant because they raise important questions about the seriousness of the anti-war movement in this country. When the effective spokeswoman of the movement — someone who the Village Voice recently suggested should run for president — is on record as calling insurgents “freedom fighters” and branding George W. Bush “the biggest terrorist in the world,” it makes you wonder what the anti-war movement is smoking, that it would give such prominence to someone who would say such things.

Imagine, if you will, a rally in favor of the war, in which the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq says, “We need to go over there and kill all those Muslim bastards.” Do you think the mother would get a free pass? Do you think she should? I certainly don’t think so. Indeed, I suspect the entire pro-war crowd at the rally would be tarred by association with the mother’s racist comment, unless they distanced themselves from it. Similarly, I don’t think Cindy Sheehan should get a free pass for calling the insurgents “freedom fighters” and making various other comments equally repugnant to all but the most radical anti-war activists. And I don’t think it’s wrong to ask why the anti-war movement puts up with her (indeed, pratically lionizes her), given her tendency to say such things.

A bit of Googling reveals another example of a repugnant comment by Ms. Sheehan:

I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support [President Bush] and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves. … How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don’t understand it. I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these ‘continue the murder and mayhem’ moms to see the light.

So Cindy Sheehan believes that other mothers of dead soldiers are “brainwashed” fools incapable of “thinking for themselves” because they disagree with her, and she is “starting to lose a little compassion for them.” Well, that’s great. Perhaps I should take back what I said above about how “I have nothing against Cindy Sheehan personally.”

I wish David Letterman had read Sheehan’s comments about her “brainwashed” fellow gold-star moms because asking O’Reilly, “Have you lost family members in armed conflict? … Well, then you can hardly speak for [Sheehan], can you?” Needless to say, Letterman’s question is idiotic — O’Reilly wasn’t speaking “for” Sheehan, he was speaking about her. But Sheehan, on the other hand, is purporting to “speak for” mothers of fallen soldiers… yet she has the unmitigated gall to dismiss those who disagree with her as “‘continue the murder and mayhem’ moms.” And we’re supposed to grant her some sort of mythical, overarching “moral authority” in the public sphere? I think not.

Cindy Sheehan is entitled to her opinion. She is also entitled to our sympathy. But as soon as she, or anyone else, tries to combine those two concepts, and says or implies that her opinion is more important, or less susceptible to criticism, because of our sympathy, I am going to become very outraged, very quickly. And because there’s so much of that sort of crap going around with Cindy Sheehan, I have a problem with her and what she represents.

New York Times journalist David Rosenbaum, who had worked for the Gray Lady for over 30 years, was beaten and robbed Friday night in Northwest Washington, DC. He died tonight from his injuries. He was 63.

Posted by Brian (Briandot)

Vince Young is going pro. Everyone else has a chance next season! :)

Brady Quinn just became the preseason Heisman favorite (assuming Reggie Bush also goes pro). And USC’s and Notre Dame’s national championship hopes just got a major boost — along with a bunch of other teams’ hopes. I’m not sure there is a clear-cut favorite now.

Now, who do the Texans take with the #1 pick in the draft? Bush or Young? Could be interesting.

Glenn Reynolds on gay marriage and polygamy:

The solution to all of this, of course, is to separate marriage and state. There’s no reason why the government should be involved in this sort of thing (the origin of Tennessee’s statute requiring marriage licenses, it turns out, was a desire to ensure that county clerks got fees, not exactly an overwhelming justification) and there’s no reason why people’s private living arrangements should be part of public debate. That’s my take, anyway.

Mine, too.

Becky and I woke up very early — 3:45 AM, to be exact — and drove from Ka’anapali to Haleakala to watch the sunrise from 10,000 feet on Saturday morning.

Yes, those are clouds that we’re looking down at. Very cool. We then went horseback riding into the Haleakala Crater, which was also very cool.

Naturally, I couldn’t resist doing my impression of King Theoden. But I’m afraid my horse, Bennie, wasn’t quite up to the task…

source file

Heh.

Many more photos to come, of course.

Tom DeLay isn’t coming back. But who will replace him? (Hat tip: Insty.)

After I wrote my wrap-up post on the USC-Texas game yesterday, something else occurred to me. When Matt Leinart completed that incredible game-saving 4th-and-9 pass to Dwayne Jarrett in Notre Dame Stadium on October 15, Becky (after she finished hooting, hollering, and swearing exuberantly) turned to me and said, “That’s why we’re the national champions.” She was right. And guess what? On Wednesday night, it came down to two game-deciding fourth-down plays. USC failed to convert on 4th-and-2. Texas scored the winning touchdown on 4th-and-5. That’s why they’re the national champions.

Anyway… even before the Rose Bowl, and moreso since it ended, I’ve been thinking that the “rebuilding year” USC faces next season is strikingly similar to what it faced after Carson Palmer & co. graduated. Like Palmer, I was a senior at USC in the fall of 2002, and I vividly remember wondering whether the Trojans would actually be able to improve on that awesome season, when — after three years of mediocrity under Paul Hackett, a 6-6 first year under Pete Carroll, and a 3-2 start to that very season — they finished with seven straight wins (utterly crushing UCLA, imploding Notre Dame’s Ty Willingham/Carlyle Holiday illusion, and destroying Iowa in the Orange Bowl) to go 10-2, and were playing better than anyone by the end of the year, undefeated national champ Ohio State included. And of course, considering the Trojans have lost the same number of games during the three years since I graduated as they did during that year alone, the question answers itself in retrospect. So I love the opening paragraph of Mark Beech’s preview of the Trojans’ 2006 season:

It wasn’t long ago that USC head coach Pete Carroll entered a season with unproven talent in his backfield. Anybody remember 2003? That’s when a little-known redshirt sophomore named Matt Leinart made his debut at quarterback, and two freshmen — Reggie Bush and LenDale White took their first reps at tailback. Leinart and Bush won Heisman trophies and teamed with White to lead the Trojans to 37 wins in 39 games and a pair of national titles.

Heh. We can only hope for a similarly successful run with the next batch of “unproven talent.” :)

Stewart Mandel sounds a similar theme in his early preseason Top 10, in which he ranks USC #3 — behind #1 Texas (”if Vince comes back”) and #2 Notre Dame. He, too, says 2006 “should be much like 2003, when the Trojans had to replace Carson Palmer, Troy Polamalu and all [their] significant running backs. They’ll be fine by halfway through the year, but like Cal did that season, someone should be able to knock them off early.”

Hmm… well, that makes sense, sort of. But looking at the Trojans’ schedule, who are the candidates to pull an early upset? Newly minted Alamo Bowl champion Nebraska is one, but who else? Er… um… Arizona? (I know the win over UCLA was hailed as a turning point for the program, but are the Wildcats going to improve that much, that quickly?) Perhaps Wazzu? (Are the Cougars going to be any good next year?) Or maybe ASU? (But that’s already pretty close to the midseason mark.) The point being, the Trojans’ schedule is very favorable to a team that’s predisposed to peak late. Their last four games are against Oregon, Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA. Wow.

(It should also be noted that the first three of those last four games are at home, with the fourth being just across town. Nebraska and ASU are also at home. The balance of power among USC’s opponents has shifted in such a way that the Trojans have years when their tough games are almost all on the road, and years when their tough games are almost all at home. This season was one of the former; next season is one of the latter. Another good omen for a “rebuilding” team — or should I say “reloading”?)

Mandel talks a bit more about his early Top 10 in his final “Mailbag” of the season:

Waking up the morning after Wednesday night’s Rose Bowl (actually, it was closer to the afternoon) felt a lot like waking up to a brand new world.

For those of us who cover college football nationally, one storyline had towered over all others the past three years: USC, USC, USC. And while the Trojans’ return to prominence has certainly been a boon to college football, what with the nation’s second-largest city suddenly showing a renewed interest in the sport, one could argue that Texas’ dethroning of them did a service as well.

It’s no secret that, as is often the case with teams that win a lot, many pockets of college football fandom across the country had been developing a pretty severe case of USC backlash. If the Trojans had carried their winning streak into next season, it would have ensured at least nine more months of USC overload, and I’m not so sure the Mailbag’s Ohio State, Oklahoma or Tennessee minions could have handled the inevitable onslaught of four-peat stories (not to mention all the LSU fans who would be writing in to point out that the Trojans were only going for a three-peat).

As it is, college football figures to return to a more egalitarian landscape. USC will certainly remain among the sport’s elite (a bevy of high-school hot shots are expected to pledge their services to the Trojans at Saturday’s U.S. Army All-America Bowl), but now we won’t have to start every conversation about the national-title race with the words “Besides USC…”

… [B]ased on the initial research I did in compiling [my early top 10 for 2006], I can honestly say that if Vince Young doesn’t return to Texas, next year’s field could be as wide open as any in recent memory. Usually, there’s at least some discernible pecking order on paper. For instance, it didn’t take a rocket scientist to guess last August that the Rose Bowl might pit USC against the winner of the Texas-Ohio State game. [But next year, t]ake Young out of the equation, and there’s not much separating No. 1 on that list from No. 7. Heck, you could swap out about eight of those top-10 teams for eight other teams entirely.

Certainly, there’s an element of fun when everyone’s chasing No. 1, but it’s even more fun when no really knows who’s No. 1.

All right, gotta finish up this post. It’s only 8:56 PM in Hawaii, but Becky and I are headed to Haleakala to watch the sunrise tomorrow morning, so we’ll be up early. But first, I must throw in the obligatory ending to every USC-related post between now and September 9: BEAT THE RAZORBACKS!!! :)

Thanks to the endless munificence of Toni (and in this case, one of her other guests), we now have wireless Internet in the condo. YAY!!!

Speaking of which, here’s a look at the beautiful condo where we’re staying. And you can see Toni’s other rental properties here. (Hey, she’s letting us stay here, I figure the least I can do is give her some free advertising! :)

P.S. Speaking of Toni, here’s a picture of her with the BCS trophy on Tuesday night:

Here’s what she said when I asked if it was the real trophy:

Yes it was the real trophy and against all rules I touched it! The old Rose Bowl guy who was stationed near it almost fell over … but I touched it, and I said to myself as I touched it, if USC wins the touch is a blessing … if Texas wins it will be a thousand year curse!

Well, if any strange and unlucky events befall people in the vicinity of that trophy during the course of the next millennium, I guess we’ll know who to blame… :)

Marcus Vick has been kicked off the football team at Virginia Tech following his behavior at the Toyota Gator Bowl earlier this week. Vick apparently stomped on the leg of a Louisville player intentionally, but got away with it because no official happened to see it.

The incident was apparently the last straw for VT’s administration, Vas ick has had numerous prior troubles both on and off the field.

A press conference is scheduled for Saturday to address the incident.

Guestblogger: David Kreutz

The NHC has issued the final advisory on Tropical Depression Zeta. As of 4pm EST on Jan. 6, 2006, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the busiest and costliest ever, is finally over. Appropriately enough, it is the latest ending ever. Happy New Year. :)

Adding one final record to its remarkable mother lode of records, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season has now lasted longer than any other Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history. Tropical Storm Zeta, which formed on my wedding day and became only the second cyclone ever to span two calendar years, is still clinging to life, albeit as a weakening tropical depression, as of 10:00 AM today:

…ZETA WEAKENING AND BECOMING DISORGANIZED OVER THE CENTRAL ATLANTIC OCEAN WELL AWAY FROM ANY LAND AREAS…

MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR 35 MPH… 55 KM/HR…WITH HIGHER GUSTS. ADDITIONAL WEAKENING IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS… AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ZETA COULD DISSIPATE LATER TODAY OR TONIGHT. …

THE NEXT ADVISORY WILL BE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER AT 5 PM AST.

When that next advisory (4pm EST) is issued, Zeta will have lasted 15 hours longer than the previous record-holder, Hurricane Alice, did in 1954-55.

Zeta probably won’t last much longer, though. The 4pm advisory, or perhaps the one that follows at 10pm, could very well be the last, according to the discussion:

THE COMBINATION OF STRONG NORTHWESTERLY WIND SHEAR AND VERY DRY AIR AHEAD OF THE [APPROACHING MID- TO UPPER-LEVEL LOW-PRESSURE] SYSTEM SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO…FINALLY…BRING THE 2005 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON TO AN END…POSSIBLY AS EARLY AS THIS AFTERNOON OR EVENING.

The Storm Track writes, “See ya latah Zeta.”

The final polls are out. Texas is #1 (I actually accidentally typed “USC is #1″ and then had to change it — force of habit, heh), USC is #2, Penn State is #3 and Ohio State is #4 in both the AP and coaches’ polls. The AP has West Virginia at #5 and LSU at #6; the coaches have LSU #5 and West Virginia #6. Both have Virginia Tech at #7. The AP’s #8-11 spots go Alabama, Notre Dame, Georgia, TCU. The coaches go with Alabama, TCU, Georgia, Notre Dame. (There’s that pesky pro-Irish bias in the coaches poll again… [/sarcasm].)

Meanwhile, ESPN’s Pat Forde takes a crack at the 2006 preseason rankings. He has Texas #1, on the assumption that Vince Young returns, and USC #5, presumably on the assumption that both Bush and White do not. Between the ‘Horns and the Trojans are #2 Ohio State, #3 West Virginia and #4 Notre Dame. Penn State, which plays at Notre Dame in the Irish’s Sept. 9 home opener, is #13.

I know I haven’t said much on the blog (as opposed to the comment section) about the Trojans’ loss to Texas. That’s partly because of technical difficulties, partly because I’m on my honeymoon, and partly because I don’t know quite what to say. There are nitpicky things I could gripe about, like the wasted timeouts, bonehead penalties, questionable play calls, and apparent inability to grasp the concept that perhaps we should put a defender on Vince Young. (Also, why the hell wasn’t Reggie Bush — the freakin’ Heisman Trophy winner — even on the field on 4th and 2??? Even if you’re not going to use him, at least scare Texas by putting him in there!!! Gawd, I officially miss Norm Chow.) But what’s the point of talking about any that? Both teams made some mistakes, but both teams played great, and Texas won fair and square. (Yes, there was bad officiating, but the bad calls went both ways. The bad officiating is a serious issue in its own right, one that needs to be addressed and fixed — it was a problem in several big bowl games this year — but it had nothing to do with the result of last night’s game.)

To be honest, I’m not as crushed by the loss as you might think. A 34-game winning streak is a pretty damn good run; Wednesday night was only the second time the Trojans have lost since I graduated, for heaven’s sake! It’d be simply greedy to think it could go on forever (all the moreso for me, as a Red Sox fan and a UConn basketball fan… it’s been an embarrassment of riches lately!). The streak had to end eventually, and while it would have been nice to squeeze out a third (yes, THIRD) straight national championship, I’d rather have the streak end at the hands of an exceptionally good team like Texas — an equal — instead of some upstart like Fresno State or, worse, a rival like UCLA or Notre Dame. :) In other words, the Longhorns were a worthy adversary, and I tip my hat to them. Hell, I’m even happy for them. Hearing the jubilant Texas fans singing “I’ve Been Workin’ On The Railroad” at the top of their lungs was really quite cool.

To be honest, what bums me out about the loss more than anything else is that it slightly diminishes the cosmic significance of that incredible October 15 game between the Trojans and the Irish which I was privileged to be able to attend. Don’t get me wrong — it was still an undisputed game for the ages, and one that I’ll tell my grandkids I was at. But if USC had won last night, that 4th-and-9 pass from Leinart to Jarrett would have literally made the difference between the Trojans winning the championship and not winning the championship. Oh, well.

I guess the main reason I’m not too devastated by the loss (aside from the fact that it’s hard to be devastated by anything when you’re in Maui on your honeymoon with your beautiful wife) is that I’m confident the Trojans will rise again. I think #5 in the preseason polls is about right, given the loss of Leinart and, almost certainly, Bush and White. But I have the utmost confidence that this team will rise to the occasion next season. They may not go undefeated, but then again, they very well may. They certainly won’t lose more than a game or two. I expect them to win the Pac-10 championship and make a run at the national championship. And man, that November 25 game at the Coliseum is going to be fun.

In case you’re wondering, last night was only the fourth Trojan loss in the entire history of the blog — and two of those losses came in 2002, when I hadn’t really developed the “sports blog” aspect of BrendanLoy.com yet. But I did mention the Kansas State loss, though not the Washington State loss. A year later, sports had become a more regular feature, and so I certainly did blog about the Cal loss.

I went to the following week’s game, the victory over Arizona State — LenDale White’s break-out game, and win #1 of the 34-game winning streak that ended last night. I also went to win #3 (over Notre Dame), #8 (over Oregon State), #28 (over Notre Dame) and #33 (over Fresno State). And I made an appearance, sort of, at win #14 (over Cal) — I didn’t actually get tickets to the game, but I flew to L.A. for ESPN GameDay before watching the game from sports bar out in SoCal.

Anyway… congratulations to the Longhorns, their coach and their fans on a well-deserved championship. And to the Trojans, thanks for the memories, and congratulations on an amazing run. BEAT THE RAZORBACKS!!!