Never Again

I haven't written on Darfur lately, so here's a cartoon that makes a point:

NFL 2006, Ridiculously Early Predictions

Welcome to my third annual well-before-the-season predictions for the season. I am writing these a bit late this year, but I haven't had too much time for blogging lately. For continuity sake, I will preserve the title, even though it's not quite appropriate this year. As usual, I will walk through my expectations for each division in the league, and then name four teams from each conference I think likely to make the big game.

As always, I must disclose I am a personal fan of the Steelers, Patriots, and Packers. I do my best to not let that influence my analysis, but it's good to know. And, as I wrote last year, it also helps in understanding some terminology I might use. For example, to describe anything as "Viking-like", especially a defense, is a derogatory statement.

Here we go....

AFC East
New England has dominated this division for 5 years. In that span, they have won four division titles (the year they didn't win it, they tied for first but lost out on tie-breakers), and of course three Super Bowls. So any look at this division must start in Foxboro. The glory years are probably over for the team, at least for now. I certainly believe they could have won the Super Bowl last year had they not played such a mistake-filled playoff game against Denver. (They outplayed Denver, but then handed them the game.) But they are no longer the dominant team they were a few years ago.

The offense looks as good if not better than last year's unit. If Corey Dillon can get back to his 2004 form, they can be deadly. Add in rookie Maroney and the Pats can pack a wallop in the running game. And they have the best quarterback in the game in Tom Brady, and a receiving corps he's very comfortable with.

But defense will again be a sticky wicket. The team will be on its third defensive coordinator in three seasons (plus, as far as I know, they still don't have an offensive coordinator to replace Weis, putting more pressure on Belichick), the previous two having gone on to be head coaches elsewhere. The loss of McGinness to Cleveland further degrades the linebacking group that has long been the core of the defense. They've lost half of their Super Bowl 39 starting linebackers. The team has lost depth in the secondary the last couple of years, and that continues with Poole this year. Rodney Harrison will be coming back from a severe knee injury and no one knows if he will be what he once was. Only the defensive line remains solid.

And did I mention their field goal kicker? The Pats, it seems to me, have always played a bit arrogantly, building a small lead and then daring the opposition to take it away. This is why they don't usually blow an opponent out and often win by smaller margins. For example, each of the three Super Bowls were won by three points. Key to this approach is having Mr. Reliable back there kicking field goals. Without him, New England will have to alter its approach on offense.

What about the rest of the division? Miami made some big strides last year, getting back to 9-7 and closing out on a long winning streak. The big move in the offseason was acquiring Daunte Culpepper from the Vikings. The question is, what Daunte did they get? The 2004 Daunte, who had one of the greatest seasons ever for a quarterback, overshadowed only by a career season by Peyton Manning, or the 2005 version, mistake-prone and dismal? His injury status has to be included in that as well. If Daunte can't go, they fall back to Joey Harrington. If Culpepper can play, and play well, he will be a marked upgrade to the Dolphin QBing, which has been questionable since the end of Marino's career, and the team will have to be considered a real challenge to New England in the division.

The Bill just seem to be in chaos. There seems to be no clear direction at quarterback. Losman or Holcomb? Ugh. Receivers? Not really. And the defense didn't exactly play well last year. I don't know what they're doing, but they can't be taken seriously as a threat of hitting 8-8 let alone winning the division.

The Jets are in a tough position. The new head coach is pretty inexperienced, with only one season as coordinator under his belt. Chad Pennington is coming off a second major injury to his throwing shoulder, and the first one had a pretty negative impact. Backing him up is Patrick Ramsey, who I do think could still become something and who did better in Washington than was ever acknowledged. But he'll be in a new system, and whatever damage has been done to his self-confidence would have to be fixed for him to be effective, should he be called on.

In the end, the division hasn't changed too much. New England isn't quite as good, and Miami could be a bit better, so for the first time in a few years, there could be real competition for the division title. I have to give the Patriots the edge in that. They have the experience and overall a better roster. With a schedule a bit easier this year than last year, they should be able to take the title one more time.

AFC North
This is shaping up to be an interesting division. Last year, the Bengals finally kicked the Bungles out the door and established themselves as one of the top teams in the conference, winning the division behind an explosive offense. Cincinnati is following the Colts' blueprint, winning with overpowering offense to compensate for a weak defense. The offense is intact from last year. The big question mark is Carson Palmer, coming off a knee injury suffered in the playoffs. He's young and I think he can bounce back, so expect a lot more fireworks from their offense. But there does not appear to have been much improvement on defense, so expect more fireworks from other offenses too.

The Steelers are, of course, the defending champions. But I do not like what I've seen this offseason. It's not yet clear when Roethlisberger will be able to play again. Many are saying that he will be able to play the season opener. But what about until then? Will he be able to keep up his conditioning? Will he get a lot of reps in training camp? He is, despite all the success, just a third year player, so he isn't someone who can just skip camp.

The loss of Bettis to retirement is a big blow. His importance to the offense is not measured in statistics. Parker got the big numbers, but at the goal line and late in the game, when the opposing offense was wearing down, Bettis was the hammer that could put a team away. He didn't get great rushing numbers, because he was always working in the red zone, but he was still a valuable weapon. Staley could fill the role, but he's been an injury problem ever since he put on the black and gold.

The loss of Randle-el is also big. He may have only been the #2 receiver, but he was a lot more than that. He was the Slash of the 2005 offense, primarily a receiver but you never knew just what he was going to do. Opposing defenses always had to worry that he would throw the ball. What threw the best pass play in the Super Bowl? Randle-el, not Big Ben. With him gone, the Steeler offense becomes much more conventional, and therefore easier to defend. Not only that, he's the second prominent receiver to leave in as many years. How much depth does the team have at that position?

Baltimore, which has its training camp at my alma mater McDaniel College (formerly known as Western Maryland College), is suddenly a player in the division race with the acquisition of former MVP Steve McNair. I'm not as big on McNair as some. Far too many injuries over the years. He hasn't played a complete season since 2002, and he is well known for not practicing during the week to nurse injuries. There's no question that, when healthy, he's a great quarterback. But he just isn't often healthy.

On paper, at least, McNair brings a real edge to the Raven offense, for the first time in its history. With a former MVP at quarterback, a running back who nearly set a single season rushing record a few years ago, and some pretty good receivers and tight end, they might actually move the ball for a change. But, that can be misleading. McNair I've already addressed. Jamal Lewis was an outstanding running back, no question. But he too is having his problems, and is coming off a dismal season. So while I think Baltimore will improve, they won't exactly be of the same caliber as Cincy and Pittsburgh.

Cleveland continues its rebuilding effort this year. There's not really much else to write about them.

So, as with the East, the North hasn't changed much from last year. It will come down to the Bengals and Steelers, again. Cincy took it last year, and despite the extra jewelry on Steelers' players fingers, the questions I have about their offense leads me to expect the Bengals will repeat as division champs.

AFC West
This has been a tough division to pick for a while now. Too many good teams, any of whom could win. I don't think it will be that way this year. Denver finally fulfilled its potential, winning the division last year and advancing to the AFC title game. Plummer showed what he can do when he plays with his head and throws the ball to his own teammates rather than the opposition. The Broncos are strong in all elements of the game, with a good defense, the always excellent running game, and Plummer playing smart. The Broncos should defend their title successfully.

The Broncos really don't have much competition. Some are taking the Chargers. Are they crazy? No matter how you spin it, they have effectively a rookie at quarterback. Let's call him a newbie instead of a rookie. Rivers has never started a game, and has attempted a whole 30 passes in his career. He may be familiar with the system and the playbook, but he just hasn't taken too many snaps against starting grade NFL defenses, playing at full speed. Maybe he'll develop into a solid player, but not right away. Think Carson Palmer and Eli Manning.

Oakland could be competition for the Broncos. They certainly look like they should be. On offense they have two superb receivers (Moss and Porter) and a good running back (Jordan). But they had those last year too, and went 4-12. Aaron Brooks has the potential to be a good quarterback, and has been one at times. But he's horribly inconsistent and makes as many colossal mistakes as he makes great plays. With no real upgrades on defense, the team is little changed from last year, so despite what it seems they could be, I have to go with what they actually did last year, which wasn't much.

Finally, there's the Chiefs. They are the only real competition to Denver in the division. Apart from their big 10-0 start a few years ago, the team isn't much more than a .500 club. Nine wins or so is maybe enough for a wildcard playoff spot, but not a division title.

AFC South
This has been the Colt playground for several years. The Titans were good, then faded. The Jaguars were faded, then getting good. But the constant has been Indianapolis. The Colt defense is starting to gain respectability, and their defensive ends Mathis and Freeney are stars. The offense has been among the best in the game. The combination of dominant offense and reasonable defense can take a team far. Despite the advantages, the Colts have floundered in the post-season, only winning about three games in the last five years. Teams only have a finite window of opportunity in this day and age, and that window is closing for the Colts. It may already be closed. Marvin Harrison, their leading receiver, is getting older. Their superstar running back James is now in Arizona. And, as I've written on before, Peyton, as great as he is, has flaws in his game that good teams will continue to exploit.

The big change for the Colts this year, of course, is the loss of James. I haven't understood the reasoning, but Indy's brass has emphasized signing their receivers to lucrative, long-term contracts while letting James go as a free agent. I am reminded of the Vikings a few years ago. They had a top offense and were coming off an appearance in the NFC title game. All the glory in their offense went to Culpepper, Moss, and Carter. Robert Smith didn't get too much attention, and few really cared when he retired. The Viking offense has yet to recover. That strong running game is what opened up so much of their passing game. When defenses no longer had to worry about a 1200 yard rusher in the backfield, they could drop more men into pass coverage and disrupt the offense. This is true anywhere. We saw last year that Manning can be stopped when defenses drop more men into pass coverage. Any QB will be. But last year, they could hand off to James and still move the ball and score. Now they don't have that. Mark my words, Indy will seriously regret losing James this year.

Having said that, will anyone take the Colts off their perch? Only the Jaguars have a chance. I really don't like them. Whenever I saw them last year, I couldn't understand how they were a playoff team. And the Patriots put an exclamation point on that in the wildcard round. I like Leftwich, but he lacks receivers. The running game isn't that good. The defense doesn't allow too many points, but that's really the only thing going for them. How much of that is a measure of who they played last year? This year, they have to go against Indy of course, but also Pittsburgh, New England, KC, Dallas, and the Giants, all of whom should have pretty good offenses. So I don't really like their chances.

The Titans and the Texans are trying to build something and are no danger of contending for the division title.

So, the Colts will still win this weak division, but they will not be the dominant team they have been.

NFC East
This has become something of an entertaining division, and certainly one of the most hard fought. After dominating the division for several years, the Eagles fell off quite a bit last year, in large part due to distractions and injuries. With Owens gone and McNabb healthy again, the team should certainly improve on its 6-10 run last year. But the division is much tougher than it was when the Eagles kept winning it, and I don't see them getting back to that level again.

As everyone knows, the big distraction in Philly last year was named Terrell Owens. T.O. is now in Dallas, where he will get to face the Eagles twice a year, until the Cowboys boot him out, too. Regardless of what one thinks of Owens' off field antics, he is a fantastic receiver and a boost to any offense of which he is a part. This being his first year in Dallas, he'll probably be on his best behavior, as he was in Philadelphia in 2004. What will be interesting to watch is how the receiving corps as a whole gels. Dallas now has two temperamental #1 receivers in Owens and Glenn. Neither man will get the catches they are used to. Owens has been the unquestioned top dog for years, but Glenn, while perhaps not his equal, is closer in ability than any teammate since Jerry Rice. How will these two guys respond to getting fewer balls thrown their way?

Assuming both can adjust, I like Dallas' chances. You have to think Parcells will get the defense working. And Bledsoe is still a capable quarterback, especially with protection, and should be able to put up good numbers with those two receivers.

I want to like the Redskins. With that defense, they should be a contender. But the offense is pretty anemic, as they showed in the playoffs. And their only quarterback option away from Brunell is Campbell who hasn't played in the league yet. The defense will give the 'Skins chances and keep them in the divisional race, but in a tougher division with better offenses, they will come up short.

Finally, the Giants, another good team that could take the division title. Eli Manning is quickly developing into a top flight quarterback, and the whole offense is quite good. What I don't like is the defense. They could be good. I don't have a good feel for them. With good defense, this team could be among the leading contenders for the Super Bowl. With a lesser defense, they still could be but will face more competition in the division.

As I said, this is a tough division. New York and Dallas are clear contenders for the division title, with Philly and Washington having a shot as well. Four teams, any of whom could win it. I will go with Dallas because I think Parcells can get a bit more out of his defense than Coughlin will out of his. That extra bit of balance should give the Cowboys the edge.

NFC North
This has been a pretty boring division lately. The Bears won it last year on the back of a stout defense. I've read other analyses of the division and don't really get why no one seems all that taken with the Bears this year. Last year, they had a strong defense and a good running game. The passing game was lousy because they had a rookie quarterback on a tight leash. Then late in the year, he got replaced by a "veteran" with less experience on the field than the rookie. This offseason, the Bears acquired a real veteran in Brian Griese. Now, I am making a big assumption here, but I would think Lovie Smith would open up the competition for the starting job in training camp, and that Griese would easily win the gig. Griese is both experienced and successful, and would add quite a bit to the Chicago passing game, giving them a real offense for the first time in a long while.

My assumption may not be valid, of course. Others have written off Griese as pure back up, important, given that Grossman has yet to play 4 consecutive games without a major injury. And, at least on Yahoo's depth chart, Griese is listed as the backup. Grossman, the least experienced quarterback on the Bear roster, has hardly earned the position of uncontested starter and Smith would be foolish to not open up the competition and go with whomever emerges as the top player. I don't think Smith is a fool, so I will base my analysis on the expectation that Griese is the starting quarterback.

Another team that no one thinks much of is Detroit. There's no reason anyone should think much of them, given that they haven't done much of anything since Barry Sanders left. But I like their offseason moves, particularly involving quarterback. They finally dumped Joey Harrington. Even better, they brought in successful veteran Jon Kitna and a young guy with possibilities in Josh McCown. To top it all off, they brought in Mike Martz, who has developed a number of successful quarterbacks, to run the offense.

Detroit has had the potential the last few years, but the individual talents have not come together. I think that changes this year. With Martz and a veteran like Kitna, the offense should settle down quite a bit and all those first round draft picks at receiver should start contributing more in line with expectations. Furthermore, Kitna is well known for working with Carson Palmer in Cincinnati, helping to groom him, so he should be a good influence on McCown who showed talent in Arizona and could be the future of the franchise.

About the Packers, there is little to say. Favre decided to come back. I don't know if that's good or not. I really hoped he would retire. The team is going nowhere, but with Brett on the team it will be hard to make the necessary switch to Rodgers, further delaying his development and the team's eventual return to the ranks of the good. They should do better than 4-12 this year, if they can avoid injuries. Maybe 6-10.

I took the Vikings last year to win the division. There have been a lot of changes since then. I don't really like where they are right now. Unless a team is well-established, I don't think a team in its first year under a new coach will do well. One has to respect Brad Johnson. The team did make a playoff run under his leadership and salvaged some credibility out of the season, but the fact remains he's old and fairly limited on the field. Offensive line should be improved over last year, with the return of Matt Birk and the addition of Steve Hutchinson. I liked the defense going into last year, so I guess I should like them again. But like Oakland's offense, the potential on paper didn't translate to prowess on the field last year.

In the end, the division comes down to an improved Bears team and an improved Lions team. Minnesota will be a dark horse contender, particularly if Chicago goes with Grossman at quarterback and all the offensive limitations that he brings. I would have to go with Chicago on the strength of that great defense.

NFC West
This was the division I really screwed up last year. I gave up on Seattle, who went to the Super Bowl, and picked Arizona, who tanked as usual. Seattle had a good year last year, obviously. Top seed in the playoffs and conference winner. They laid a total egg in the Super Bowl. (Fans, give up on blaming those couple of calls. Most legitimately could have gone either way, and none addressed your team's inability to manage the clock or to stop the couple of big plays Pittsburgh's offense managed to conjure up. The Steelers didn't play a good game, but they outplayed the Seahawks.) Clearly, they have to be viewed as the front runner for the division, probably the worst in football.

I don't know what to actually make of them. I gave up on them last year because of their inability to put games away and their unevenness and inconsistency. Things bounced right for them last year and they won, but they didn't necessarily put away those ghosts. I guess I'm still not sold that they can be a consistent and powerful team.

Arizona, I just don't get. They had one of the top ranked passing offenses last year, as expected for a resurgent Kurt Warner (and the potentially talented McCown, now in Detroit). But those yards didn't translate into touchdowns. Will a vastly improved running game change that and give the offense more touchdowns? I have to think so. Of course, Warner is right back in the position of being a placeholder until a young stud quarterback is ready, this time Leinart.

The question is, will I go on a limb and pick Arizona again? I look at that offense, and the weak nature of the division, and I like what I see. I think Warner is still a good passer, and he has good receivers to throw to. James is a phenomenal runner and the addition of that running game should do wonders for the offense overall. (I like seeing connections, so this is interesting, at least to me. Marshall Faulk was the stud running back in Indy for several years, before moving to St. Louis where he took handoffs from Warner. Faulk's replacement in Indy was James, who is now in Arizona taking handoffs from Warner.) So, will I pick them?

I won't waste my time writing about San Francisco. They improved a bit last year and regained a bit of respectability, but they are still a few years away from contending for anything positive.

The Rams are headed into the murky territory of the 49ers. The battle there will be for last place in the division.

So, who will win? The East is a tough one to pick because any of the four teams could win. This one is tough, because it's so bad. To make it worse, the division has something of a tough schedule because all must play the AFC West. I get paid, so to speak, on this blog to go out on a limb, so yes, I will go with Arizona again. Teams trying to follow up a Super Bowl loss have a pretty dismal record of late. And I still think Seattle is the same inconsistent team they've been. Things just may not bounce their way again this year.

NFC South
This is another competitive division. The Panthers have been to two of the last three NFC title games. In fact, a member of this division has been to the last four (Tampa, Carolina, Atlanta, Carolina again), which is how many there have been since the division was formed. I've liked the Panthers since their spirited performance against the Patriots in Super Bowl 38. I don't think I can pick them this year, though. The offense is too focused on one man, Steve Smith, and he's getting older. Yes, it was last year, too, and they did well. But I don't see it as a recipe for long term success. They brought in Keyshawn Johnson, but he's another aging receiver. The running game hasn't been great, either. What they do have going for them is one of the top defenses in the league. But I don't think that will be enough this year.

I like where Tampa is. They have done an excellent job of retooling the offense since their Super Bowl win a few years ago. Chris Simms looks like he might be a pretty good player. Cadillac Williams had a superb rookie season and is a big reason the Bucs won the division last year. And the receiving corps is strong. On the other side of the ball, contrary to all my expectations, the Bucs continue to play good defense, ranking #1 last year. With a strong defense and a pretty good offense, this team can go far.

Atlanta. I've written many times on this blog what I think of the hype surrounding Michael Vick. The offense is about as one dimensional as Chicago's. Run, run, run. Vick is a superb runner, but not so much as a passer. That's a bigger problem now that he's coming off an injury and doesn't have the mobility he's used to. The receiving corps stinks, and the team has done nothing to improve it. (I don't really get the approach the Falcons are taking to building their team. They have this huge price tag QB, but don't invest much in getting the people around him to make that investment pay off. It makes no sense.) The only reliable target Vick has for his passes is his tight end. The defense isn't all that great either. In a division with two teams as strong as Carolina and Tampa, they're just not going far.

The Saints, well what can one say? They made two big splashes in the offseason, acquiring Drew Brees from San Diego, and drafting Reggie Bush. Good moves, but this team has so many problems that the whole roster has to be overhauled, and that will take a few years.

Super Bowl
It's far too soon to actually pick a Super Bowl matchup, so as always I will pick the four top teams in each conference, one of whom is most likely to make the big game.

AFC: New England, Denver, Cincinnati, Indianapolis
Picking the four AFC teams has been easy for the last few years. The conference has been dominated by Indy, Pittsburgh, and New England. (Interesting question: What is the biggest rivalry in the AFC the last 5 years? Many will probably say Indy-New England. Wrong. Pittsburgh-New England, particularly in the post-season. Indy hasn't really won too many playoff games, whereas Pittsburgh has won quite a few, playing in 3 of the last 5 conference title games, two against New England.) So, really I just had to think about one pick. It's a lot tougher this year, because all three of those teams have faded a bit and none will dominate as we have come to expect.

The Patriots, while fading, still could well have won the title again last year. They have one of the best offenses in the game, and are obviously the most experienced team on the field. So, I really can't take them off the list. The Bengal offense is just so good. If Lewis can get respectable play out of his defense, as Dungy has in Indy, there's no telling how far they could go. Denver has the balance I like.

The Colts were a tough pick. It was between them and the Steelers. I am going with the Colts because (a) they should win their division whereas Pittsburgh won't (not that that stopped them last year), and (b) while both teams are going to see a falloff from last year's form, I think it will be more dramatic for Pittsburgh.

NFC: Tampa Bay, Carolina, Dallas, New York
Neither the North nor the West divisions are very strong. I would give Chicago an outside shot at the Super Bowl, but I'm not too impressed with the receiving corps so I don't know that they would have the offense to keep up with the teams on this list. These four teams are all pretty strong and well balanced, particularly the two South division teams. The Giants and Cowboys make the list on the strength of the offense, though both defenses should be respectable.

Bush Sings Bloody Sunday

Some people just have too much time on their hands. Very funny video of Bush singing U2's Sunday, Bloody Sunday in a speech to Congress.

Amusing Little Bug

27B Stroke 6 reports

If you're a Windows user, open Notepad and type in this phrase, without the quote marks and with no carriage return: "Bush hid the facts". Now save it and open it again.

The subversive text is probably gone, replaced by a line of white boxes, or Chinese characters if you have the font.

Not really subversive, just a bizarre bug in the app triggered by a file "consisting of a four-letter word, two three-letter words, and a five letter word."

Kantor on Net Neutraility

Andrew Kantor writes on net neutrality, saying what I've said before, but he says it better and with more detail.

Unfortunate Headline

Unfortunate headline of the day: Ex-British rocker loses Vietnam child sex appeal. What, so the alleged pedophile's sex appeal to Vietnamese kids is waning? How sad. I guess they find younger pedophiles sexier.

A New Stringed Instrument

The Tritare is a guitar-like instrument that uses a Y-shaped string rather than the traditional linear string.

The sounds produced by the TritareTM can span the range between guitar tones all the way to more percussive tones such as bell sounds. This novel instrument also provides opportunities for many new playing techniques such as vibrato and the use of a bow, due to its ‘Y’- shaped geometry which allows the player to attack the string networks from any one of its three necks.

Play with a bow? Calling Jimmy Page. It's been done.

Roethlisberger Undergoing Surgery

Uh oh, Steeler fans.

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger is undergoing surgery at Mercy Hospital after he was injured in a motorcycle accident on Monday.

The extent of his injuries are unknown.

"Ben is in serious but stable condition and right now is in the operating room undergoing surgery for injuries he received in this accident," said Dr. Larry Jones, chief of trauma at Mercy. "Before he went into the surgery, he was talking to me and was coherent. He knew where he was and what had happened."

Update: I was driving home yesterday and a DJ mentioned Ben's accident. What was ironic is that he noted that Ben didn't like riding with a helmet and then said he was on Ben's side. He's agreeing that wearing a helmet is annoying, as Ben is getting surgery for serious, preventable injuries received simply because he didn't wear a helmet. What craziness is that? (And, please note that I write this from Milwaukee, home of Harley Davidson, while looking at my wall which has several pictures of Harleys that I long to own.)

Now This is Science

This is the kind of stuff I miss about science.

Power Grab

Great article in The New York Review of Books about the Bush power grab.

According to an article in The Boston Globe, Bush has claimed the right to ignore more than 750 laws enacted since he became president. He has unilaterally overruled Congress on a broad range of matters, refusing, for example, to accept a requirement for more diversity in awarding government science scholarships. He has overruled numerous provisions of congressional appropriations bills that he felt impinged on his executive power. He has also overruled Congress's requirement that he report back to it on how he has implemented a number of laws. Moreover, he has refused to enforce laws protecting whistle-blowers and providing safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Bush has also used signing statements to place severe limits on the inspectors general created by Congress to oversee federal activities, including two officials who were supposed to inspect and report to Congress on the US occupation of Iraq.

And the president provides a great insight into his own approach to government:

I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel I owe anybody an explanation.

Those Who Voted for the War

Ted Rall's latest is a repudiation of those Democrats who voted for the Iraq war in 2002 and now are trying to distance themselves from that vote. I'm not fan of Rall, but I do agree with some points. He quotes Senator and possible presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton, "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed." The defense is, "We didn't know."

Well, yes you did, Senator. The UN had weapons inspectors investigating sites administration intelligence said housed WMD production facilities, and consistently found nothing. Everyone knew this. That the Senator chose not to believe these facts is not the same as saying she didn't know them. The truth is most people believed Saddam had weapons (as the president consistently reminded us since things have gone bad, he wasn't the only one who believed it), so they chose to ignore the facts, and in that way she and many other Democrats failed the American people.

But, as I've written on from the beginning of this blog, the failure goes deeper than that. Not only did the Senator ignore the plain facts being reported by the inspectors, she and the rest of the Democrats made little effort to evaluate the rest of the evidence the president presented to justify his war. When the documents were offered for Congressional perusal, no one bothered to even read. So, to whatever extent one wants to argue the Senator really didn't know as she claims, it is to a large extent because she didn't want to find out.

I focus on Senator Clinton, but she is emblematic of numerous Democrats who chose political expediency in 2002, and voted for an ill-advised war because they were too terrified of standing up to the president and of losing their precious seats.

So don't give me the "We didn't know" defense. If you really didn't know, you have no business being in Congress.

Concealed Gun Carrying

Folkbum argues against carrying concealed weapons in Wisconsin, one of the "dwindling handful of states yet to allow concealed carry." On the argument that carrying concealed weapons will reduce crime rates:

As to the claim that carrying reduces crime, it is suspicious at best. (The author of a book with a similar name is a demonstrated fraud.) Yes, violent crime rates fell during the 1990s in states that liberalized their carry laws. But to believe the changed laws cause the drop in crime is to fall for the oldest social science fallacy. Just because two things happen sequentially does not mean that the first caused the second.

Because guess what happened to violent crime rates in Wisconsin during that same time period, with the same restrictions in place that the NRA and my email correspondent now want changed? If you guessed that they fell, you win.

In fact, in 2000, only four states had less violent crime reported to the police than we did, with our rate being half that of the US as a whole. Last summer’s murder rate notwithstanding, Wisconsin continues to have one of the lowest rates of violent crime, all without concealed carry.

It seems pretty simple: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

AIDS at 25

I gather today (June 5) is the 25th anniversary of the CDC announcement of what would become known as AIDS. USA Today has a look at AIDS in America today.

Net Neutrality

I have to admit I don't really understand this whole net neutrality debate. As I understand it, the broadband service providers want the ability to enter into special relationships with content providers to prioritize their bandwidth intensive offerings like streaming video. This is needed, so the providers argue, to subsidize the extra infrastructure costs needed to support such offerings.

The net neutrality crowd's concern is that this would result in providers blocking access to sites that don't pay up. But do you really think ISPs would block access to big sites, e.g. Google? That seems pretty crazy. Such an ISP would quickly lose customers. As Randolph May writes, "The marketplace reaction likely would be swift and adverse." It seems to me the worst we consumers could expect is that we would continue getting service at the same level we're getting it now.

I use Road Runner at home. Under the ISP plan, RR would try to cut a deal with, say, Yahoo to build out infrastructure, subsidized by Yahoo, that would deliver high bandwidth Yahoo content to RR customers more efficiently and quickly. That would obviously be a boon to RR users who use a lot of Yahoo content. If Yahoo didn't agree to the deal, then RR would just keep delivering the content they way they do now, which is apparently good enough for a lot of users. Again, if they took the bold step of cutting off that Yahoo content, RR would lose quite a few customers to some other broadband ISP that didn't cut them off. (Admittedly, RR is owned by Time-Warner who has not exactly distinguished themselves over the years in the realm of intelligent business operation.)

Portraiture in India Photo Gallery

Instapundit points to this gallery of portraits from Pune, India. I must admit a preference for the black and white images, but they are fantastic. I particularly like this very Karsch-ish image:


FYI, Pune is also home to the Indian National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, perhaps the leading astronomical institution in India and the institution behind the GMRT.