United Nations Condemns Denial of the Holocaust

US State Department:

The U.N. General Assembly, on the eve of the second International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust, adopted by consensus a resolution condemning any denial of the Holocaust.

This is a long-standing complaint of mine. The UN wants to condemn any denial of the Holocaust. That's fine with me. But what is the Holocaust? How many people died in the Holocaust? If you said 6 million, you're a Holocaust denier. The answer is 11 million: 6 million Jews, 5 million non-Jews.

Now, the government recognizes this:

The Holocaust refers to the systematic, bureaucratic effort by the Nazi government of Germany to exterminate Jews and other groups the regime targeted. A total of 6 million Jews and millions of others were murdered by the Nazis during World War II.

But in practice, every time the Holocaust is mentioned, it's in the context of discussing the Jewish victims. The other almost 50% of the dead get ignored. There's no Schindler's List about them. In fact, the resolution mentioned here is in response to Iran's denial of "the massacre of Jews." So even in condemning denial, they deny the Holocaust.

Caffeinated Doughnuts

Just what the world needs. "Each piece of pastry is the equivalent of about two cups of coffee."

Shock of the Day: CAIR is Upset

CAIR's latest concern is about the TV show 24:

A group of Muslim activists who challenged 24 bosses over the show's portrayal of Islamic terrorists two seasons ago are attacking the program again. Officials at the Council on American-Islamic Relations met with producers back in 2005 when the 24 plot revolved around Muslim fundamentalists, and now they're upset again because the new season seems to portray members of their religion in the same shady light. Council spokesman Rabiah Ahmed says, "The overwhelming impression you get is fear and hatred for Muslims. After watching the premiere, I was afraid to go to the grocery store because I wasn't sure the person next to me would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality." The activists urged the show's bosses to meet with them again, but this time only succeeded in bringing them around a table for a conference call. Following original meetings in 2005, 24 star Kiefer Sutherland appeared in a TV commercial urging viewers not to assume all Muslims were like the terrorists portrayed in his series.

If these guys cared half as much about Muslims who "portray [...] their religion in a shady light" by being real terrorists and strapping explosives to their chests as they are about TV shows that show some fictional Muslims strapping explosives to their chests (and some other Muslims helping the FBI by passing along information, and still other Muslims turning their backs on terrorism and trying to catch the main terrorist, neither of which CAIR acknowledges), their complaints might have some significance.

NFL 2006 Conference Championship Predictions

Who will win this weekend?

Saints @ Bears
I've said before I really like the Saints' story, going from #2 in the draft to #2 in the conference, and now the conference title game. I really like the team. The offense, with MVP candidate Drew Brees leading the way, has gotten all the attention, but the defense ain't all that bad.

Conversely, I'm not all that big a fan of Chicago. The struggles on offense are well documented. But even the vaunted defense began struggling late in the season. The Seahawks were a pretty lightweight division winner, even by NFC standards, and last week's playoff game still came down to a last second field goal.

The Saints are the better team, even if they don't have the better record. But, I live in the upper midwest, just off Lake Michigan. I was outside this morning. Chicago in January has one of the best home field edges around thanks to the wind and the cold. A team from New Orleans is not going to be well acclimated to the conditions, and it will impact their competitiveness. I've read Sean Payton saying that, when he was a coordinator for the Giants in their Super Bowl year of 2000, they had a lot of practices late in the season indoors and still managed to win in the cold. But the difference is the players' bodies were used to the cold. The Saints' players won't be.

It sounds silly, but for that reason alone I have to go with the Bears in this one.

Patriots @ Colts
This is the one everybody cares about, for good reason. Whoever wins is most likely to win the Super Bowl. As the NFC title game was in the 80's and most of the 90's, so the AFC title game is now. New England is clearly no longer the team it was a few years ago when it was winning back to back titles. The defense and passing game have both declined due to age and attrition. But they are still a tough team to beat, as San Diego found out last week. On offense, the running game is brutal when they get both Dillon and Maroney going. As for the passing game, well Brady finds a way to make things work even with lesser receivers, which is pretty much all he's ever had.

As I wrote earlier in the week, everyone is raving about the new-found Colt defense. The team that couldn't stop anyone in the regular season suddenly looks pretty good. But that analysis seems to me to be without context. In both playoff games, the Colts played lesser offenses whose passing game was less than impressive. Not having to worry so much about the passing game allowed Sanders, returning from injury that caused him to miss most of the season, to come up and help with the running game and improving the team's performance in that department. So the recent success has come by bring in secondary help to stop the run. The Patriots, of course, have a much more capable passing game. If they bring Sanders up frequently to help out against the run, Brady will make them pay with passing that the Chiefs and the Ravens couldn't execute. With Sanders playing further back in pass defense, the Colt run defense suddenly becomes what it was in the regular season: bad.

Everyone knows what Manning can do. But that analysis seems more based on reputation than facts. Manning has struggled mightily in this post-season, with 5 interceptions to only one touchdown. Granted the Ravens are not too shabby on defense, but Manning and the rest of the offense had no touchdowns. (The Chargers aren't too bad on defense either, and the Patriots managed a few touchdowns.) Another measure of the Colts' offensive struggles is a stat Peter King pointed out: "In the last two weeks of playoff football, Gaffney and Caldwell have 30 catches for 337 yards and two touchdowns. Indy's Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne: have 16 catches for 180 yards, one TD." The Colt offense is all about the wide receivers, but Manning hasn't been getting them the ball, at least not for big gains.

Expect New England to pound the ball with Dillon and Maroney. It exploits the run defense weaknesses of the Colts, and should result in prolonged drives that will both take the dome crowd out of it and keep the Colt offense on the side lines unable to get into a rhythm. They got away from that during the regular season matchup, a mistake Belichick is sure to learn from. When Sanders inches forward to help out against the run, expect play action passes to exploit the resulting weakness in the pass defense.

The Patriots can control the ball far better than Indy can. So I have to go with them to win yet another conference title.

So Super Bowl 41 is a rematch of Super Bowl 20.

NFL 2006 Divisional Playoffs Thoughts

I don't think I saw any game this weekend start to finish. Too much work stuff happening both days, so I spent a lot of time shuttling between the TV and the laptop. But I did see a fair amount. The only team I saw that I was impressed with was New Orleans. What a great story. But the other three games were sloppy and I came away with the impression that all three winners were lucky to be there. (And if any of the losers of those games had won, the impression would have been the same.) Neither the Colts nor the Patriots could get much offense going, at least not consistently. The Bears were no better, but we expect that of Chicago. All three had their moments, but they were really unimpressive games.

That said, the most beautiful play of the weekend had to be that 68 yard touchdown pass from Grossman to Berrian. That's the artistry of football right there. Hitting a speeding wide receiver perfectly in stride from a distance of 40 or 50 yards.

As I, and everyone, said, what a great story the Saints have been. Going from 3-13 and second pick in the draft to 10-6, a division title, and second seed in the playoffs. And doing this in a city as broken as New Orleans. What's most impressive to me is the awareness the team and its players have of their role. So many football stories are about spoiled, rich guys. Then you watch the Saints players and coaches running around the stadium, high-fiving the fans. It's just great.

With the Chargers suddenly out of the playoffs, the field is wide open. As I've already said, none of the teams left are particularly dominant. The AFC may still be the better conference, but from what I've seen the Saints can hold their own against both Indy and New England.

Next week's NFC game will be interesting. The Saints are a warm weather team who play in a warm weather division. Unlike the AFC South, the NFC South is a true southern division, with Carolina being the northernmost team. (Indy, near the Great Lakes, is part of the South division in the AFC.) Many of the key players are from southern California (Brees from San Diego, Bush from USC). Now they have to go one of the most inhospitable sites in the league: Chicago in January. They are the better team, but can they win in a cold they are far from used to?

What was with LT after the Charger's loss yesterday? He just stormed off the field and seemed downright hostile to anyone who tried to shake his hand. I understand that there has to be a lot of crushing emotions surging through his veins at that moment, but LT is a man of high character and his behavior seemed totally out of character, and fairly unsportsmanlike. I've read that he took offense to what he saw as the Patriots celebrating on the Charger logo, which he took as disrespectful to the team. That wasn't shown on TV and the commentators didn't seem to notice it.

Why did Andy Reid punt at the end of the game? He's down, it's under the 2 minute warning, and he only has two timeouts left. The idea would be, I guess, that they punt then hold the Saints to a 3 and out and get the ball back. Because they only had two timeouts, even a 3 and out would take 45 seconds off the clock, giving the Eagles a little over a minute to move the ball and kick a field goal, with no timeouts. It's pretty remote that that works, particularly when your defense hasn't necessarily distinguished itself stopping the run. This is a coach who went for it on 4th and 26 a few years ago (what Packer fan can ever forget that play?).

Just when you thought a new order in the AFC had risen, the conference title game is once again Indy and New England. Geesh. I'm very tempted to pick the Patriots in this one. While neither team was impressive this weekend, New England came closer than Indy. Both played strong defenses. Indy kicked field goals, New England scored touchdowns. I did like the way the Patriots' secondary played, a very physical game that is needed against the Colts.

A lot has been made of the Colts finally remembering they are allowed to play defense. Don Banks calls it the story of the playoffs. But it should be noted that this newfound defense has come against some limited offenses. The Chief passing game was in total disarray, and the Ravens' passing, while several steps above what was under Kyle Boller, is only about the level of a Trent Dilfer. Both teams were heavy on the run, and pretty light on the pass (which freed up the Colt secondary to help out on the run defense). The Patriots are far more balanced.

A lot will be made of the fact that the Colts have won the last two meetings between the two teams, and that the Patriot monkey is finally off their backs. Maybe. But things are different in the playoffs. And Belichick's record in rematches is pretty stinkin' good. You don't sweep his team if you play them more than once. Just ask Mike Martz or Kurt Warner, who has yet to recover from his 2001 rematch with the Patriots, a.k.a. Super Bowl 36. Besides, the Patriots could have won the game this year.

Schottenheimer in the Playoffs

FOX Sports has an analysis of every one of Marty Schottenheimer's 17 playoff games, trying to decide how responsible he is for the dismal 5-12 record in those games. It should definitely be noted how many times his teams went up against Hall of Famers John Elway, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, and Dan Marino over the years. Certainly that is a big part of the 12 losses. Ten, in fact. None of the wins ever came against future Hall of Fame quarterbacks. Of course, having a record of losing to teams with legendary quarterbacks doesn't bode well for this weekend's matchup against Tom Brady.

NFL 2006 Wild Card Thoughts

Those Chiefs really stunk. One of the worst displays of playoff offense I've ever seen. Even last year's Bears did more. Everyone wants to crown the Colt defense, but the real culprit was the Chief receiving corps. How many times early in the game did they drop balls? One play epitomizes things: 3rd and 7 or so, Green is pressured and scrambles to his right, throws a pass to Dante Hall who is right at the sticks, pass hits Hall right on the numbers, and he drops it, time to punt. It was plays like that early on that kept the Chiefs from getting into a rhythm.

And why did Herm Edwards not change quarterbacks? This is the season, here. The team desperately needed a spark, any spark, on offense. At the half, despite everything they were only down 9-0. The defense was playing well, but had been on the field far too long so he had to know that sooner or later the Colts would start getting some points. It's not that Green played badly. He didn't. But something had to be done to shake things up. It might not have worked, but at least Edwards could have tried.

The Patriots are looking really good again. But their biggest problem this year has been inconsistency. In most of their losses, they have shot themselves in the foot with sloppy play, turnovers, and penalties. Even in a lot of their wins, they played sloppy. They looked really good last year in the wild card round, only to screw themselves in the divisional round, outplaying the Broncos and losing.

What can anyone say about Seattle? A team that only made the playoffs because they play in the NFC West, and it's required that at least one team from that division make the playoffs. Play in any other division in the NFL, they wouldn't even be in the post-season. Then they win a game they had little business winning, on a fluke play. It does not exactly inspire confidence.

What can anyone say about Dallas? That's two games this season that looked in the bag but for a short field goal at the buzzer to wrap it up, only to have the Cowboys find a way to screw up the field goal attempt and pull crushing defeat out of the jaws of victory.

The Eagles were impressive, particularly the defense which is playing like it's 2003 again. But not so impressive that they have much of a chance against the Saints next week.

Looking ahead, everyone will be picking San Diego over New England. Heck, I picked the Chargers to win, and to win the Super Bowl. I can't back off on that prediction. But I will point out that this is not the first time Schottenheimer has been in the playoffs. Few active coaches have made it as many times as he has. It's not the first time he's taken a team to the playoffs with the top seed in the playoffs. It's not even the first time he's taken an AFC West team to the playoffs with the top seed. How many times did his Chiefs get the top spot, only to lose in the divisional round? 5-12 in the playoffs, and several of those 5 wins coming in the 80's with the Browns. I don't think Marty has won a playoff game since the 1993 season. This is, and will remain until he changes it, a huge question mark over any Marty Schottenheimer team in the post-season.

And the fans in Cleveland must love that Chargers-Patriots matchup next weekend. The only two coaches in the last 25 years to lead the Browns to playoff wins face off, while the Browns continue their extensive exploration of the league basement.

Richardson to Darfur

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is going to venture where many others have failed: Darfur

Richardson, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, heard disturbing reports of rape, death and corruption from the top U.S. diplomat in Sudan and humanitarian workers, but said he was not deterred from the challenge of trying to help bring peace where years of international efforts have failed.

"I think we make some measurable progress if we can help the cease fire and the humanitarian situation and possibly start a united political process that helps the U.N. peacekeeping effort alive," he said.

Ugh. Apart from the silly idea of a small-time governor succeeding where so many others have failed, it never ceases to amaze me that just about everyone who gets involved in Darfur focuses on the humanitarian crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis, absolutely. There are 2.5 million refugees struggling to stay alive, with little help from anyone. While getting food to these people is very important, in the absence of any other action, all it means is those 2.5 million people will die with a bit of food in their bellies rather than without. That's not really a solution.

This is a humanitarian crisis created and sustained by the government of Sudan, the very government Richardson will meet with to try to get permission for a peace-keeping force to be deployed. It's a bit like asking Hitler for permission to monitor the death camps of Poland. The world's leaders, including our own, keep excusing their indifference by pointing to the fact that Sudan won't let the UN deploy forces to stop its genocide. How shocking.

Rather than negotiating to allow some humanitarian handout, the world needs to stand up and realize that a government that carries out genocide against its own people has no legitimacy and to put an end to it, whether the Khartoum regime likes it or not.

Israel's Plans to Attack Iran

Pajamas Media analyzes the Sunday Times' report that says Israel is planning to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The author of the report seems to a have nice little history of making similar reports, which casts a lot doubt on the authenticity of this one. PJM goes on to quote a veteran Haaretz reporter who doubts the authenticity because Israel would not use nuclear weapons, as the Times reports, in this situation.

So this report seems questionable, at best. But does that mean the idea behind the report is wrong? No, I'm not saying it's fake but accurate. It should be clear that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. The Iranian government is on record calling for the annihilation of Israel. They are supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel is a state with a siege mentality, not unjustified given the many Arab-Israeli wars in the past, not to mention the terrorist activities of said Hamas and Hezbollah.

Given this, do you think Israel will respond passively if one of its principal and most powerful enemies successfully develops a nuclear program? Recognizing that a military strike would inflame the region, Israel has so far kept a low profile and allowed other agencies, like the US and UN, to try to deal with the problem. But they will not stand by forever. At some point, if no one else will take care of the problem for them, they will do it themselves.

So while we analyze the latest report out of London about Israel's plans and rightly dismiss it, let us not lose sight of how dangerous this situation really is.

Riehl World View: The Myth Of Jefferson's Koran

Riehl World View has an "analysis" of Thomas Jefferson's relationship to Islam. As we learned through Representative Ellison, Jefferson once owned a Qu'ran, which Ellison used in his post-swear in photo op. Then, despite owning a Qu'ran, President Jefferson sent the US navy against the Barbary Pirates, who were Muslims. Riehl apparently feels this is an important point. "The reality ... is that Jefferson waged war against Islam ... long after having read their book." OK, thank you for playing.

I don't really understand the point Riehl is trying to make. Of course, I really don't get the stupid uproar over Ellison having his picture taking with a Qu'ran, either. It all seems so stupid. Lots of Christians get their picture taken with a Bible after being sworn in, and Jews with a Tanahk. So why can't a Muslim have one with his religion's book? Talk about a tempest in a tea cup.

Riehl seems to be trying to make the point that while Jefferson may have owned a Qu'ran (and a slave or two, or many more), he still defended American security. Doesn't that show the obvious point that owning a Qu'ran and defending the country are not mutually exclusive things. Then what's he so upset about with Ellison?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I must publicly admit I have a Qu'ran. Actually, I think I own two. They are buried somewhere in my basement. I've even read the first chapter or two of it. They were sent to me by a Muslim with whom I had been having a very civil discussion on some newsgroup many years ago. Yet again, I've probably ruined my chances at the presidency.)

HamNation: Hold Onto Your Collards!

Mary Katherine Ham vlogs on Democratic spending now that they're back in control of Congress. It's amazing, for six years of Republican controlled Congress, conservatives didn't seem to mind record deficits and reckless spending. Bush runs the debt through the roof, no problem. But Democrats come into power, and all the sudden they fear that government might spend too much. Geesh.

NFL 2006 Wrap Up and Playoff Predictions

Well, another season is done. I'm glad I wasn't able to devote much time to writing my weekly pick column this year, because I was terrible. This was by far the worst of the three seasons I've been doing this. Here's a week-by-week break down of my performance over the last three seasons:
A good start to the season, but then the abysmal. I finished 147-109, 18 games off from last year's 165-91. And my (revised) playoff seeding predictions didn't bear out too well, either. Well, I got all the division winners except the NFC East right, just in the wrong spots. But I totally whiffed on the wild-cards.

So with that record behind me, let's look at the post season. In the AFC, I kind of like New England's position at 4th seed. Next week's game against the Jets is quite winnable. But more importantly, Indy run defense goes against the Chiefs, which makes an upset quite possible. If so, then the Chiefs would travel to San Diego and the Patriots would avoid the Chargers for one more week. I do think a Patriot win over the Ravens is quite possible, thereby setting up a Chargers-Patriots AFC title game. Of course, it's all moot because the Chargers are head and shoulders over the rest of the conference (and league). So, while New England makes yet another run at the title, the Chargers will take them down in the conference title game. If Baltimore ends the New England run, then the Chargers will just destroy the Ravens instead.

In the NFC, I picked Dallas to win the conference. I actually like their spot at #5. They have to go on the road, true. But they get to play the weakest division winner in the playoffs in Seattle. Given that Philly should certainly be able to take down the weak Giants, that puts Dallas in Chicago the second week. Given Chicago's struggles on offense, that is winnable. Once the Saints manhandle the Eagles, we get the NFC title game in New Orleans against Dallas. How great would that be for the city!

Having said that, I have to note that every time the stakes have been raised for Dallas, they have crumpled big time. A few weeks ago, they faced the Saints with control of the #2 seed on the line, and got their butts kicked. Then they faced the Eagles with control of the division on the line, and repeated their performance. Finally, this weekend against a dismal Lion team, with a shot at the division title still on the table, they lost again. So can Dallas really do what I just said? I don't think so. So the alternative scenario would put Seattle in Chicago, a game the Bears should be able to take easily, resulting in a conference title game at Soldier Field against the Saints.

Either way, the Saints take the conference. They are too good on offense, and have a defense that isn't all that bad (#11 overall in the league, #13 in points allowed). With such a weak NFC, I can't see anybody taking them. Granted, they've had their share of bad games and are only 10-6. But, unlike Dallas, when the stakes have gone up, particularly against Dallas and the Giants (two playoff teams) in recent weeks, they have dominated. I do think the Cowboys are a more complete team, and if they play well have a shot at the title, but they just don't rise to the occasion like the Saints do.

So we get a Chargers-Saints Super Bowl, and you can just imagine the story lines there. Drew Brees against his old team and the guy who shoved him out. The superstar running back against the (supposedly) guaranteed future superstar running back. The league MVP against the runner-up (probably). But hype aside, that would be a good Super Bowl, but the Saints' magic ends there. As I said, the Chargers are head and shoulders over everyone else this year. Their only liability is Schottenheimer and his dismal record in the playoffs. But this is probably the best team he's ever had.