Controlled Chaos

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 12:13 PM) *sigh* Can we drop the Kotex Boy moniker? As much as I hate Mariotti, it's incredibly sexist and offensive. sexist??

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 12:11 PM) Liking 2 different color Sox. DOH!!

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) Poorly written press release. It almost sounded like Tracey was part of the deal. Only if you're reading with your eyes closed. Seemed perfectly fine to me.

Way beyond “usual combat” Jun 14, 2006 by Jeff Emanuel ( bio | archive ) The events of November 19 in the terrorist stronghold of Haditha, Iraq have been rehashed ad nauseum in print, on television, and on radio since TIME magazine "broke" the story four months after its occurrence. What is clear is this: 24 Iraqis (of whom at least 15 appear to have been civilians) were killed by U.S. Marines after one of their own was "split in two," as a member of the patrol soberly put it, by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), or roadside bomb. Less certain is whether some of the deaths were a result of the IED and others occurred during a firefight with insurgents (which recordings of radio traffic appear to support), or if the Marines simply, as anti-war Congressman John Murtha asserted, "murdered" the whole group "in cold blood." With the exception of Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who has apparently gone off the deep end in his quest to ensure the defeat of the America he served, the charge to convict these Marines in the court of the media and public opinion has by and large been led by people who have never experienced anything even vaguely resembling a "combat situation." The stressful and dynamic nature of combat—bullets flying, bombs exploding, and soldiers’ lives literally in each other’s hands—is so far removed from what the average American, who is used to being stressed by school, family and the slightest changes in schedule, is used to that it is almost utterly and completely incomprehensible. Barring the ability to empathize with the stresses of a combat situation, Americans must attempt to understand that what our troops are facing in Iraq goes far beyond what could be called "usual combat." No longer are our soldiers fighting a uniformed enemy, all of whom answer to a unified higher command, and all of whom have a similar or identical objective in mind. Instead, they are fighting enemies that dress like civilians, use churches and schools as a base of operations and, as soon as the opportunity presents itself, grab the nearest woman or child from behind which to attack. Today’s enemies are just as happy to see their own countrymen killed as Americans. They willingly—even purposely—bomb their own churches and schools, and will gladly use and sacrifice any person available to help achieve their various goals. The recent history of Haditha and its surrounding area bears this out. In the spring of 2003, Special Operations forces secured Haditha Dam, a giant complex on the Euphrates River, which, had it been successfully demolished by Saddam’s forces, would have cut power to a large portion of west-central Iraq and unleashed devastating flooding on downriver cities. After being successfully defended against a five-day mortar and artillery barrage from the town, the dam was used as a checkpoint from which to deny terrorists the ability to freely travel east into more populous central Iraq. In one particular incident, a car stopped at the checkpoint and a pregnant woman got out. As the Army Ranger captain in charge approached her she, in a trembling voice, asked him for some water. He complied and as he neared her car with a canteen the vehicle exploded. He and another Ranger were killed instantly; a third suffered such serious burns that he died shortly after—all because of their willingness to aid, rather than harm, a civilian woman (an innocent who quite likely had no desire to be used either as a suicide bomber or a "martyr"). Even while facing an enemy that has no qualms about staging such episodes, America and her military have been constantly striving to elevate and redefine war itself in recent years. Every soldier undergoes annual training on the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) to ensure that war crimes of any magnitude do not occur, and even more legal and sensitivity training appears to be in line for the troops after this recent incident. Rather than area bombing, as was done during World War II and in the Linebacker operations of Vietnam, today’s air-to-ground operations are so precise that, with the assistance of Air Force tactical air controllers on the ground marking targets and providing target coordinates to planes, our bombs can not only hit a designated building but can be put into a specified window. Most of all—and make no mistake about this—America does not target civilians. All too many of our brave soldiers have died precisely because when the enemy was shooting from within a school or from behind women and children they did not accept the so-called "collateral damage" that would have resulted from firing through the innocents to kill the terrorists. Take CNN’s Arwa Damon's account for example: I went on countless operations in 2005 up and down the Euphrates River Valley [with the Marines patrolling in the Haditha area.] I was pinned on rooftops with them…for hours taking incoming fire, and I've seen them not fire a shot back because they did not have positive identification on a target. I saw their horror when they thought that they finally had identified their target, fired a tank round that went through a wall and into a house filled with civilians. They then rushed to help the wounded—remarkably no one was killed. I was with [the Marines] … as they went house to house in an area where insurgents would booby-trap doors, or lie in wait behind closed doors with an AK-47, basically on suicide missions, just waiting for the Marines to come through and open fire. There were civilians in the city as well, and the Marines were always keenly aware of that fact. How they didn't fire at shadows, not knowing what was waiting in each house, I don't know. But they didn't. This report is representative of the day-to-day operations of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere. In spite of what many anti-war and anti-American activists claim, our troops are among the most humane in the world and are fighting in this and other wars not for love of killing but because of a belief in the greater cause of freedom, and in America. However, with its constant opposition to the war effort, the media appear to have seized on this as—finally!—the "war crime" they have been waiting so long for. It is a direct result of this that the story broken by TIME magazine, which has been getting poked fuller and fuller of holes in recent days as the media have backed away from several details of the original account, seemed at the time to be, as Clarice Feldman said in the American Thinker , "a story too good to be checked." Americans and others can rest assured on one front: the Navy is meticulously investigating the incident. TIME magazine reported that Haditha residents have been “gratified by [the] thoroughness” of the investigation. If there was wrongdoing, and if it was covered up, all of those responsible will be appropriately punished. The U.S. Military severely punishes those guilty of wrongdoing; for evidence, refer to Abu Ghraib, a media-inflated scandal and an incident to which Haditha has been compared. One of the two soldiers portrayed in the majority of the Abu Ghraib photographs received ten years in jail; the other received three. Given that level of sentencing for an incident which, though hateful and malicious, did not result in civilian deaths, it is a no-brainer that these Marines, should they be guilty of the cold-blooded murder of innocents, will receive every bit of what they deserve, if not more, at the hands of the military. The investigations into last November in Haditha will be completed and whatever guilty parties there may be (if any) will be brought to justice. Until then, it should not be too much to ask that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines—who have sacrificed their time, their comfort and even their lives and limbs for our safety, for our right to live free and for our ability to be stressed over our ordinary lives—be given the slightest benefit of the doubt. Setting the record straight on Haditha Jun 12, 2006 by Mary Katharine Ham ( bio | archive | contact ) When I worked at a newspaper, my fellow reporters and I made mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes were on the front page of the paper; sometimes tucked away on B7 between the obits and the county's largest legume. Sometimes they were mispelled names and misplaced box scores; sometimes misused facts and mishandled reputations. But no matter the nature of the mistake-- its size or its import-- the correction always went in the same place. Second page of the A section, bottom right-hand corner. It was policy, and the policy had the unfortunate consequence of usually making the correction of a mistake less prominent than the mistake itself. Such is the nature of news coverage on all levels, and one of the most valuable contributions the new media and blogs can make to that news coverage is to highlight corrections that would otherwise be overlooked in their little corner of A2. A couple of weeks ago, spurred by Congressman John Murtha's assertion that Marines in Haditha had killed civilians "in cold blood," the media promptly rushed to judgement, topping every story with Murtha's cold-blooded soundbite. When word leaked from Pentagon sources that there might be murder charges in the case, the media ran with the "maybe murder" story. Because no one had yet been charged, and no one was leaking the Marines' side of the story, many became concerned that the slanted coverage might affect the fair treatment and presumption of innocence to which American servicemen are entitled. One of those people was Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, a former Marine lawyer who the Washington Post quoted out of context in its eagerness to get an Abu Ghraib reference into the story. This week, the media is backing off of its original tone, and it's time to highlight corrections so they don't end up being relegated to the back of the paper and the back of people's minds. So, I give you the Top 3 things to remember about Haditha that the press would like you to forget. 1. Oops, Time After Time In the first media report on a "possible massacre" at Haditha, back in March, Time magazine reported that "a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME." Because the incident was under investigation and no one could comment on it, Time used that videotape to bolster the accusations of civilian massacre. Now, buried at the bottom of page four of that article is this correction: In the original version of this story, TIME reported that "a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME." In fact, Human Rights Watch has no ties or association with the Hammurabi Human Rights Group. TIME regrets the error. Without the connection to "internationally respected Human Rights Watch," the origin of the video and the motives of the journalist involved become much more questionable. But that's not the only piece of photographic evidence called into question by Time corrections. In a subsequent Time story , we have this correction: In the original version of this story, TIME reported that "one of the most damning pieces of evidence investigators have in their possession, John Sifton of Human Rights Watch told Time's Tim McGirk, is a photo, taken by a Marine with his cell phone that shows Iraqis kneeling — and thus posing no threat — before they were shot." While Sifton did tell TIME that there was photographic evidence, taken by Marines, he had only heard about the specific content of the photos from reports done by NBC, and had no firsthand knowledge. TIME regrets the error. Well, I would hope they regret that one. When a major national news magazine claims there is specific photographic evidence of American Marines killing civilians while they were praying and it ends up being wrong, that correction should be as prominent as possible, especially when those Marines have not yet been charged or faced trial. Over at Sweetness and Light, a blogger takes a look at Time's young journalist source and finds that the journalist was not exactly the green go-getter Time had described. Why start a human rights group if you want to remain anonymous? And why did Time pretend their source was young? Why did they pretend he had no involvement with Hammurabi? (When in fact he is its founder.) But that is just the start of the many questionable aspects of Thabit's accounts. Bear in mind that this "budding journalism student" waited until the next day to videotape this alleged atrocity, which supposedly happened on his very doorstep. Note that this same "budding journalism student" and self-proclaimed human rights watcher did not bother to turn over his video to a media outlet or a real human rights group from November 2005 until March 2006. A four month delay. That's how eager they were to make sure such a crime is never again repeated. 2. Context Come Lately There was more going on in Haditha that day than just the IED explosion that killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas and apparently sparked the fighting that left so many dead. Capt. James Kimber offers his story: But that day, at about the same time, Iraqi insurgents attacked all three Marine companies patrolling in the Haditha area--one of them commanded by Kimber. He said he could hear over his radio the shots being fired during a running gun battle in Haditha. "They weren't just Marine weapons. You can tell from the sound," he said... Kimber's recollections provide a valuable backdrop to the events last November, a period during which Marine units were encouraged to escalate their use of force in dealing with insurgents, according to a Marine colonel with knowledge of operations in that area. A source I've talked to, who is involved in the potential defense cases for these Marines, said that the IED that took Terrazas' life was just the beginning of a coordinated insurgent attack on four Marine squads they knew would respond to the first IED attack. The cluster of attacks ended up hampering relief efforts and injuring about a dozen Marines. As the situation developed, the Marines at the initial ambush site were isolated for a period of time in this hostile city and they had every right to fear for their lives. A group of about 15-20 foreign fighters were believed to be in Haditha that day, supplemented by local insurgents. Knowing that 6 Marines had been surrounded and killed in Haditha before help could reach them just three months before, the isolated Marines had to fear the worst as they responded to the first attack. Haditha was a hotbed of insurgency in November of last year. It's important to remember the frequency and intensity of attacks these Marines were facing. There's also another side to the story, and the accused are beginning to tell it through their lawyers: A sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident in Haditha, Iraq, that left as many as 24 civilians dead said his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings, his attorney said. Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield. 3. The Nature of the Enemy Something terrible happened in Haditha. The day ended with one Marine and 15 Iraqi civilians dead. But we don't know how it happened or what the reasons were. What we do know is that it is the exception to the rule to find American Marines wantonly murdering civilians. It is rather the rule, however, for insurgents to put those same civilians-- women and children-- in harm's way. That is what Terrazas' father says happened that day in Haditha: Exactly what happened that day remains unclear. Miguel Terrazas' father, Martin, said the Marines his son fought with told him that after the car bomb exploded the Marines took a defensive position around his son's battered vehicle. Insurgents immediately started shooting from nearby buildings, and the insurgents were using women and children as human shields, Martin said he was told. The Marines shot back because "it was going to be them or" the insurgents, Martin said of what his son's fellow Marines briefly described to him. It wouldn't be the first time terrorists have shown such disgusting disregard for the lives of children. We do not know what happened in Haditha on November 19, 2005. When two military investigations and any trials that result are complete, it will become more clear. If Marines are guilty of atrocities, they will be punished severely. In the meantime, rely on alternative media and bloggers like Mudville Gazette , Sweetness and Light , California Conservative , and this bunch of informed milbloggers to keep level heads about the accusations. The mainstream media spent a couple of weeks throwing around the "cold blood" and "maybe murder" stories. Now that they're backtracking, it's our job to make sure new corrections and less damning facts don't get lost in the corner of page two.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) Just out of curiosity, isnt' there a specific time window when even civilian authorities can hold a prisoner for either questionning or as a material witness/suspect while an investigation is under way? I'm not sure, but someone here will post it... Either way these guys are behind bars 23 hours a day; family members can only see them through inch-thick Plexiglas?? Only the worst of the very worst criminals get treated like that and that's AFTER they are found guilty.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 09:39 AM) I think the way he's handeled Anderson and especially McCarthy has been absolutley horrible. It's on thing to publically "back" a guy like Anderson but platooning him with Mackowiak was just stupid as was threatening to send him down plus only playing him against lefties even though he has more trouble with them historically, what better way to get in a groove at the plate than to play 2-3 times a week and only against lefties. Did he actually expect BA to produce under those circumstances? McCarthy should have been one of his major setup men from the get go, he's just that damn good. There's no reason for BMac to get the Mike Jackson treatment, he does you no good if you're using him as a mopup man and only pitching him 1-2 times a week, the guy needed regular work and was not getting it. Funny how when he begins to pitch more regularly he starts to dominate and is then thrust into the righty setup role. That's 2 very blatant situations, I think he did a fairly good job with Jenks last year but with the other 2 rookies he's had over the course of his managing career he's seriously dropped the ball IMO. How exactly does demoralizing a 25 year old rookie with a total of 4 IP in his big league career bring a team together? "Hey guys look Ozzie's hootin' and hollerin' at Sean! Wow I feel real close to you right now, lets make beautiful baseball together." For some reason I just don't see that happening. You would rather Ozzie use kid gloves with his players. You like a soft approach. Maybe when you get to be a manger you can use baby talk as a means of communication. Everyone can wear fuzzy pink bunny slippers and play duck duck goose in between innings. I can see Uribe now...pato pato!! Wouldn't that be swell!! GMAFB...these are grown men. Tracey is 25 years old...If he can't handle his boss yelling at him for not getting the job done, then I certainly don't want to see him on the mound with the tying run on third base. If Tracey is a stand up guy, he will blame himself for Ozzies lashing. He didn't perform. Same with Anderson...he knows it's nobody's fault, but his own. I want Anderson in there, but I certainly wouldn't blame Ozzie for Andersons struggles. It's like there is no more accountablility in this day and age.

Kinda shocked at some peoples knowledge of the game in this thread.

The parents of some of the soldiers have websites up here, here, and here. American troops in shackles Jun 14, 2006 by Michelle Malkin ( bio | archive | contact ) Did you know there are seven young Marines and a Navy corpsman sitting in a military brig right now in leg and wrist shackles -- despite the fact that they've not been charged with any crime? The men are in solitary confinement, locked in 8'x8' cells at San Diego's Camp Pendleton, as investigators probe an April 26 incident involving the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment, 1st Marine Division. They are behind bars 23 hours a day; family members can only see them through inch-thick Plexiglas. Military blabbermouths have told the press that the service members are suspected of kidnapping and shooting a man in the Iraqi town of Hamdaniya. The Iraqi man's family reportedly came forward seeking payment for his death as media hysteria set in over the separate alleged atrocity in Haditha. These men -- our men -- may be innocent. They may be guilty. Charges may or may not be filed this week. But this much is certain: The media leaks and the Murtha-fication of the case are already taking a heavy toll on the troops and their families. The headlines have already convicted them: "Iraqi's Slaying Planned By Marines, Official Says." "Marines Planned to Kill Iraqi Civilian, Then Planted Evidence." The national media ignored a protest by supporters outside Camp Pendleton over the weekend. "I want the Marines to know that they are not forgotten, that people are out here thinking of them," said one attendee. The father of one of the men in custody, Pfc. John J. Jodka, worried: "It appears to me that this is the reaction of some senior people to show 'We're in charge; we're cleaning up our act.'" Not a peep heard yet from the American Civil Liberties Union. The website of the self-anointed crusaders for individual rights contains hundreds of articles on the rights of al Qaeda suspects and an indignant press release on the suicides of Guantanamo Bay detainees. But no mention of the Camp Pendleton Eight. For their part, human rights groups were too busy shedding tears for the Gitmo terrorist suicide squad and lionizing them as "heroes" in the words of William Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Editorial cartoonists have been preoccupied desecrating the Marine Corps logo and tarring troops as baby-killers. A clarion voice stepped into the fray this week to push back against the global rush to judgment against our troops. Ilario Pantano, a Desert Storm vet-turned-Wall Street banker and new media entrepreneur-turned-reenlisted Marine from Hell's Kitchen, launched his gripping book "Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy" this week, which recounts his harrowing ordeal as a Marine smeared and cleared. Last spring, he faced the death penalty for defending himself and his men in the heat of battle and killing two Iraqi insurgents. He was accused then, as Marines are being accused now, of wantonly executing Iraqis to send a message. His family and friends' defense of Pantano was met, as those of Marines are being met now, with incredulity or apathy. There were no pleas to withhold judgment against Pantano from the New York Times then. No Oprah sit-downs now with the wives and children of accused troops. As an agitated, condescending Ann Curry of NBC's "Today Show" tried to paint Pantano Monday as a callous thug, he replied with quiet dignity: "I don't think it's helpful to national security to have this kind of self-flagellation before the facts are actually disclosed." Innocent until proven guilty? Justice for all? Benefit of the doubt? These are apparently foreign concepts when it comes to Americans in uniform being held on American soil. Perhaps if our troops proclaimed themselves "conscientious objectors" and converted to Islam, they might start getting some sympathy.

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 02:53 PM) i'm stumped at 4... HINT: The picture is an upside down crocodile.

Anyone else do this? It's pretty tough. I finally got through all 7. The last one kinda sucks. http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPag...thSearch&bhcp=1

Ok I promise...last pics...well for at least a month. Here is the birth announcement.

Thanks again everybody!! Here's one more pic. This was takin right after Rodriguez tagged from first. She wasn't a happy camper after that play. Gianna is a strong advocate of defense and was crying all night at the impending doom of Brian Anderson.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 7, 2006 -> 03:25 PM) Hey - I like that blanket. That's pretty damn cool. Where can I scam me one of those? Thanks everyone!!! The blanket was a free gift from the hospital. I told them you're lucky it wasn't a cubs one or I would be using it as a diaper.

Allow me to introduce all of you to Gianna Grace. 7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 in. Mom, Baby and Dad are all doing great!! Gianna was able to watch her first white sox game last night and brought home a winner. She was never even worried.

I saw "The Break Up" yesterday. I thought it was pretty decent. I'm a big Vaughn fan though. If you're expecting Wedding Crashers/Old School...it's not that type of movie at all. I mean it definitely has funny parts, but it is more about the interaction between two people that are breaking up. I'd say it's more a relationship movie than anything else. I found myself laughing at lines that then turned out to be serious and not so funny...so that was kinda weird.

QUOTE(valponick @ Jun 4, 2006 -> 06:14 PM) While I think these previews are nice and a good addition to this site, the people who write them need to be more objective.

My comments from this post... I am OK with this and it has nothing to do with the GOP. It has to do with protecting this country. If 6 months from now we catch a terrorist, wouldn't it be extremely beneficial for the NSA, CIA, FBI or who ever the hell does it, to look back and see who they called when. Wouldn't it be beneficial to capture a whole cell or multiple cells because of this program. This is not to track John and Mary Jones. This is not infinging on your rights to have a private and secure conversation. Your number willl never even be looked at unless you're speaking to someone you shouldn't be. This program can be an enormous help in the fight. I mean you people do know that terrorists don't walk around with signs that say "I want to kill Americans." We don't know who they are right now. If we do catch one...we can go back and see who they have links to. We can catch others that want to blow up our buildings. We can catch others that want to kill our way of life. Yeah, I'm all for that. If you think it's just because of party affiliation then so be it. Ok so it wasn't 6 months, but Canada has caught some terrorists. I don't know how it all went down and I don't know what was planned...but that's just it...We don't know. I would say time is a pretty important issue. If our government can cross reference the terrorists numbers from Canada with their database here and get a few matches and move on it right away, they could possibly foil an attack. Don't you think the terrorists would speed up their evil plan if they found out some of their buddies got busted? I'm sure they would know their time would be runnin out. Minutes could be the difference in preventing an attack.

Call it a semi-finale Anti-climactic episode means wait'til 2007 for real fireworks Monday, June 05, 2006 WARNING: This column contains major plot spoilers for last night's "Sopranos" episode. Don't think of it as a season finale. You might feel happier that way. HBO has been careful to call January's final eight shows "bonus episodes" for this season. At first, I assumed that was just clever language to avoid having to negotiate a new season's salary for the actors. But the only way to rationalize last night's meandering, closure-light episode is if you believe that David Chase considers all 20 episodes to be of a piece. But fact is, this is the last episode we'll get for seven months. An eyeblink compared to the last hiatus, but season five closed with the double-barreled power of "Long-Term Parking" and "All Due Respect," and "Kaisha" wasn't nearly in that class. By opening the hour with a dedication to the late John Patterson, who had directed all the previous season finales, Chase and company were calling this a finale of some kind. I've heard all the complaints about this season, but this was the first time all year where I felt genuinely unsatisfied. I know I've been writing for weeks that we were heading towards an implosion, and that I didn't think much would be resolved before January. But it's one thing to predict it and another thing to experience it. Chase has always had a fondness for zagging when the audience expects him to zig, and sometimes it feels like he goes zagging off just because he can. He wants to wean viewers off of all the TV narrative traditions they've been suckling since birth, but some of those traditions are there for a reason, and have been since long before TV existed. Steven Bochco didn't say that if you show a gun in the first act, you have to fire it by the third; Anton Chekhov did. I'm not insisting we needed all-out war between Phil and Tony, or Carmela to visit the FBI offices in search of Adriana, or Paulie to die of cancer. But we needed something interesting to happen in one of the arcs, rather than the crude jokes Chase and company tried to disguise as resolutions, like Carmela abandoning the Ade search as soon as Tony revived the spec house, or Phil's heart attack tabling the war. The latter half of this season hasn't had the same drive and cohesion of the first five or six episodes, but each hour has featured at least one compelling development or image: Johnny Sack, broken man; Tony finally taking a firm hand with AJ; an oblivious Carmela helping Tony get dressed for a tryst; etc. Last night was mostly another installment of the Christopher Moltisanti Scag Junkie Hour. We get it already: Drug addicts are among the most boring people on the planet. We got it when Christopher shot up through the Italy trip. We got it when he was high at Livia's wake. We got it when he sat on Cosette. New punchline, please. We know that characters on this show rarely, if ever, change (even New Tony has backslid enough that you could call him Slightly New Tony), but usually the writers manage to use that immutability in service of interesting stories. When they revisited Christopher's Hollywood obsession in "Luxury Lounge," at least we got to see him punch Lauren Bacall in the face. All we got here was Julianna Margulies proving that skimpy underwear doesn't make you look good if you're puking in it. Even Tony had to acknowledge to Melfi how much his life is running in place -- and that, since his therapy sessions haven't done him much good in years, he just comes to see her. (Note his wardrobe for these visits.) Not coincidentally, the only character not stuck in the mud was the most interesting of the night: AJ. Not only has his derisive nickname been upgraded from "Prince Albert" to "Working Man," but for the first time in his life, he seems to understand about responsibility. Falling for the right girl helps, of course, not that Carm's prejudices would allow her to see that Blanca could be the right one for AJ. Before, he might have been dumb enough to think he could scare those guys on the stoop, or callow enough to just use them as an excuse to bail; instead, he offered up his bike to make them go away, about the smartest, most selfless thing he's ever done. To be fair, he did get rewarded with his first sex scene on the show, but this really feels like a new and improved AJ. Even the bit where he mouthed off to Tony at the Christmas party ("I got a guy." "And I got a job.") felt different -- maybe because AJ wasn't taking the easy way out. But is AJ's redemption enough to tide us over until January? "Kaisha" didn't change my opinion of the overall brilliance of this season, but it's leaving a sour taste in my mouth as we wait one last time for more adventures of Messrs. Soprano, Gualtieri, et al. Some other random thoughts: Butch Deconcini, one of Phil's sidekicks, was played by Gregory Antonacci. Nearly 30 years ago, Antonacci played a wannabe wiseguy from Newark in two Chase-written episodes of "The Rockford Files" called "The Jersey Bounce" and "Just a Coupla Guys." The latter featured a family-oriented Jersey mob boss named Tony who was sort of a rough draft for our Tony. And the circle is complete. I know she's only appeared twice, but I think I hate Mrs. Phil more than any character in the history of the series. Now she feels bad that Vito's dead? At The Movies I: Christopher's line about getting "the 50 Cent movie" free at the car wash was a self-deprecating joke by Terence Winter, who wrote the script for "Get Rich or Die Trying." Also in the wheels-within-wheels category: The Christopher character in "Cleaver" is named Michael. Might the last name start and end with an I? And now AJ has replaced narcoleptic Aaron as the guy Tony throws food at on Thanksgiving. Good times. At The Movies II: "Vertigo," the movie Chris and Julianna see, is about a man whose obsession with his dead lover consumes him to the point where he tries to turn his new girlfriend into a copy of the old one. When we come back in January, will Julianna have talon fingernails and an animal print wardrobe? Maybe "The Shah of Iran" is an unfair nickname for Phil. When he lurched back into the hospital, he looked more like Frankenstein's monster. With Junior, it always comes back to JFK, doesn't it? Sad, sad old man, trying to keep his dignity by regifting the Bacala money to his orderly. At The Movies III: Why so many shots of Bacala's son watching "Casablanca"? Will there be a scene in January where Phil and his guys start singing "New York, New York" at the Crazy Horse and Tony and pals drown them out with a stirring "Thunder Road"? Will the final shot of the series be Tony and Agent Harris walking along a Newark Airport runway, talking about their beautiful new friendship? That's all the mob talk until January, folks. I'm still writing about TV daily in The Star-Ledger and on our Web site (nj.com/tv/ledger/), and if you're a fan of HBO's other violent masterpiece, "Deadwood," my fellow Star-Ledger critic Matt Zoller Seitz will be doing weekly Rewind columns that you'll be able to find on our Web site every Monday. And we may have more Rewinds in store when the network TV season resumes in September. Until then, see you in the funny papers ... Alan Sepinwall may be reached at [email protected], or by writing him at 1 Star-Ledger Plaza, Newark, N.J. 07102-1200.

QUOTE(SnB @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 10:22 AM) it's my mommy's birthday It's my dad's birthday!

This is where a phone database comes in handy.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jun 4, 2006 -> 11:10 PM) Actually, I agree with you. It wasnt one of BA's best defensive games, and it was still head and shoulders above what anyone else can do in CF for the Sox. I understand Brian at the plate is hard to watch, but the way the pitching has been going, also the lack of K's they are collecting(I think we have the 2nd fewest behind San Fran) the D is super important to this club, and Mack just doesnt bring that to the table. I also still have a hard time with how quick they pulled the plug on Brian. If we still had Chris Young, or we had a Ryan Church, Jeff Davannon type player backing him up, I wouldnt have a problem with Brian getting a seat on the bench most of the time, but Kenny went out of his way, and im sure he had Oz's good word that they didnt need Rowand, and Young was expendable because of Anderson. If your going to put that much faith into a player, you damn well better make it a strong investment and not give up on it in two months. Yes I understand this is a World Series team, and yes I understand its hard to have a .170 hitter a the bottom of the order, but the O hasn't been the problem this year, yet Brian has been riding the pine ALOT this season.... I actually think if Pods was in left, it could have been one of Brians great games...I think he probably could have gotten to both those balls Ozuna dove at. Brian did make a rookie mistake on the one play by heading for the dugout, but I only think he did that cause he figured it was a routine catch and pablo called for it. Anderson was pretty much past that ball when Pablo dove. He might have had it standing up. I want Brian in the field. I don't care about his bat right now, we aren't losing cause of his bat. He saves us runs out there. If he saves us 2 runs a game it's the same as scoring two. I would also like something to be worked out in the outfield where Brian takes most gappers.

Freedom fighter Under threat of death, bodyguards always near, Dutch politician and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali keeps on fearlessly criticizing Islam. By Carlin Romano Inquirer Book Critic (Rob Keeris/Associated Press) Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Book preface | The Caged Virgin, An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam Sitting regally at a small table in 19, the tony cafe atop Park Hyatt at the Bellevue, Ayaan Hirsi Ali smiles as if the world were a peaceful place, and all people brothers and sisters. Slim, black, beautiful and stylish, she lifts her espresso cup to her lips slowly, with a princess' sense of self. Waitresses flit about. Wealthy sorts chat across their overpriced breakfasts. Hirsi Ali, 36 looking like 26, turns heads. To the business guys eyeing her from other tables, her looks compute as "model," or maybe "TV anchor." Hey, is that Iman? Naomi Campbell? Well, they're easier guesses than the second coming of Spinoza. Hirsi Ali may be the boldest rationalist rebel the Netherlands has seen since that 17th-century philosopher got himself excommunicated for rejecting (among other things) the Amsterdam Jewish community's belief in immortality of the soul. Yes, those two muscled guys a few tables away, who keep drilling in on Hirsi Ali's eyes, are Dutch, but they aren't trying to make eye contact. They're trying to keep her alive. "Here I have two men and one car," Europe's most stinging critic of Islam says with a sigh. She's in Philadelphia this month for a conference in honor of scholar Bernard Lewis, and to promote her first book, The Caged Virgin (The Free Press, $19.95). "At home it's six men and two cars." Hirsi Ali, who is single and has (she says) no romantic life given the dangers that swirl around her, has been named one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People of 2005, a Glamour magazine Hero of the Month, and European of the Year by Reader's Digest. Over the last few years, she's been awarded the Danish Freedom Prize, the Swedish Democracy Prize, the Government of Madrid's Tolerance Award, and many other human rights honors. How did life come to this for a Somalian turned Dutch citizen whose blunt criticism of Muslim treatment of women makes death threats an everyday downer? It's a story increasingly blared around the world on the front pages of newspapers. Born in Mogadishu, Hirsi Ali fled to Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya, where she suffered the genital mutilation she now fiercely battles, and attended a Muslim English-language school in Nairobi. In her youth, she believed in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's Islam, even backing the Iranian's fatwa against Salman Rushdie. But when she turned 22, her father arranged for her marriage to a distant cousin in Canada. In Germany on her way to meet the man in 1992, Hirsi Ali hopped a train to the Netherlands and escaped. Accepted as a refugee, she studied political theory at the University of Leiden while rising from menial jobs to translation and social work with immigrants. She received Dutch citizenship in 1997. Her study of philosophy turned her into an atheist, and Sept. 11 further stirred her to question Islamic beliefs. Invited by the Labor Party in 2003 to run for a seat in the Dutch Parliament, she won it. But it was murder that made her famous. In 2004, she joined Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a descendant of the painter, to write and narrate a short TV film titled Submission: Part One. It showed four women in see-through garments, Koranic verses written on their bodies, discussing abuse by Muslim men. In November 2004, a radical Dutch jihadist of Moroccan descent stabbed van Gogh to death in Amsterdam. A note attached to the knife left in his chest threatened the same punishment to Hirsi Ali. Dutch security quickly ushered her into hiding - she's been guarded 24/7 ever since. Last month, after her visit to Philadelphia, life back home took an even stranger turn. A TV documentary revived old allegations that she had lied about her name, age and refugee status in applying for asylum. Hirsi Ali had long ago admitted changing her name and, on the advice of social workers, claiming she had come straight from Somalia. But she has steadfastly denied lying about the arranged marriage, or her fear that her family would try to kill her. Nonetheless, Rita Verdonk, the Dutch immigration minister, and the figure in her own political party whom Hirsi Ali has vaunted as Holland's strongest leader against appeasement of radical Islam, declared that she would revoke Hirsi Ali's citizenship. "She's a very strong woman," Hirsi Ali said of Verdonk, a former prison warden, before the conflict flared. "She's not going to move for anyone. But she's not well-versed... . She has not had an intellectual upbringing.... " Hirsi Ali believes the Dutch now split into "appeasers" who don't want to upset Muslim communities, and a growing number of "confrontationalists" like herself. Hirsi Ali concedes she had already leaned toward leaving Holland for many reasons: the death threats and security; eviction from her most recent apartment in the Hague after neighbors won a court judgment that Hirsi Ali's dangerous proximity violated their human rights; and the chance to come to the United States as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. So she resigned from Parliament. "It is difficult to work as a parliamentarian if you have nowhere to live," she told a news conference. A furor followed Verdonk's action and the prime minister restored Hirsi Ali's citizenship. But her resignation stands. According to her publicist, she's accepted the American Enterprise Institute's offer. Asked to summarize the pros and cons of how the Dutch see her, Hirsi Ali replies, "Two words are used. One is she's so brave, and the other is she's so clear." As for critics, they "say that I'm traumatized, that I've had an unhappy childhood. They say that I'm a radical. That I'm a liar and that I invented my childhood... . Another cliche is that she wants to be in the limelight. Another is that because she has these people around her, the cars and the security, she lives outside reality. "As I make an inventory, as I list the cliches," she says, "I really see how silly they are." Not everyone thinks they're silly. Mohammed Sidi, chairman of the Trust for Islam and Citizenship in Holland, called Submission "pure provocation." The Netherlands branch of the Arab-European League has said "she wants to offend millions of Muslims in the Netherlands." The country's Contact Group for Muslims and Government called Submission "a distortion of the facts." Her critics contend that Hirsi Ali takes the worst aspects of Islam, such as instances of racism and abuse of women, and projects them onto all Muslims. To Hirsi Ali's credit, she includes their criticisms in her book and seeks to answer them. But you need talk only briefly with Hirsi Ali, or read The Caged Virgin - a crisp, very clear indictment of Islamic misogyny mixed with autobiographical scenes and reflections about her own liberation - to understand that the lady pulls no punches. This is not Rodney King and "Can't we all just get along?" Not "We respect Islam and, hey, everyone has a few bad apples." Hirsi Ali aims at Islam's heart. She insists that the beliefs and life of Islam's prophet, Muhammad, must be confronted, analyzed, and, in many respects, rejected. "If 1.2 billion to 1.5 billion abide by, follow his rules," Hirsi Ali observes, "and say we want to be like him, then I think it's urgent, it's necessary." She concedes that Muhammad urged Muslims to do some good things, "such as his advice to be charitable toward the poor and orphans." But, Hirsi Ali insists, on the whole he's not admirable. "He borrowed a little bit from Judaism," she says, "he borrowed a little bit from Christianity, and he invented some things, especially the fierceness with which he dealt with his enemies, the killing, the way he violated special tribal rules." Long before radical Islamists threatened violence in return for any criticism of Muhammad (thus violating the Islamic principle that Muhammad was a man with flaws and should not be idolized), Islamic scholars accepted that Muhammad was a warrior of his time, contending that he shouldn't be judged by modern standards. Even Lewis, the great scholar of Islam, leans to that interpretation, though Hirsi Ali sees his graciousness as prudence: "I think Bernard wants to leave the Arabs some dignity... . He wants to give them an opening, which is really noble... . " Her own view, however, is that "following this man [Muhammad] can lead to only one thing, fascism... ." Hirsi Ali says she decided to confront Muhammad's history after Nigerian Muslims rioted over the planned 2002 Miss World contest there. A British-educated Nigerian journalist poured fuel on the fire by writing that Muhammad himself would have married one of the contestants. The rioting killed 200 people. "So I said," Hirsi Ali confides, " 'You know what, darling Europeans? I'm going to tell you about Muhammad!' " True to her gloves-off approach, Hirsi Ali talked about how Muhammad, who had nine wives, fell in love with his wife Aisha when she was 6 and married her when she was 9. Hirsi Ali outraged Dutch Muslims by accusing Muhammad of pedophilia. Hirsi Ali says some took the issue seriously. She emphasizes its relevance because "there are more and more men taking minors as wives, and saying that Muhammad is their example." Hirsi Ali says the debate gave her hope - she received one letter from a Muslim that read, "I don't know what you started in me, but I am thinking... . " In the same way, Hirsi Ali explains, she'd like to challenge the beliefs of Black Muslims in America. She finds it as unfathomable that African Americans would convert to Islam as that Jews would convert to Nazism. "I want to tell them about Darfur," she asserts firmly. "The people in Darfur are being exterminated just because they are black. So [islam] is also a racist doctrine... . People don't know what's going on in Saudi Arabia. All these palaces are full of black slaves! So the black community here converting to Islam is like converting voluntarily to slavery. "I think if they hear it from a black person," she says hopefully, "it will help." These days, Hirsi Ali reports, she's working on a book about Enlightenment values - Voltaire remains a great hero. She plans to have it translated into Arabic, Urdu, and other key languages and distributed around the world in video and audio. "I'm going to resurrect Muhammad, and he's going to have conversations with [british philosopher Karl] Popper and me and [economic theorist Friedrich] Hayek." Hirsi Ali smiles. "I hope I live long enough to complete it," she says. ONLINE EXTRA Read an excerpt from "The Caged Virgin"

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 2, 2006 -> 02:59 PM) We saw the 2 star ones also. The rickshaw ride from the hotel to the park was quite the experience. The park sucks. The bathrooms are vile. The food wasn't bad at the park, but I figured if a star resturant wasn't concerned about the mice.. Fenway surely wasn't either. :puke And if you ever have to pick up tickets via will call... good luck. Get there at least 2 hours before game time and expect to wait. And wait. And wait. They are the most un-organized park I have ever been to. And a lot of the fans were assholes. Assholes in Boston?? Get out!!!

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jun 2, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) There's no chance I'm betting against my own team. Jeez, I get enough s*** just for being pessimistic. And I don't shove it down people's throats when something bad happens and I said it would. I say positive things where positive things are deserved. Jon Garland, of the 6.something ERA, has given me nothing to be positive about this year. The bullpen, too, has given me nothing to be positive about beyond Jenks, Cotts, and Thornton (who I've been saying will be a contributor since KW got him). And the same goes for the blackhole at the bottom of the order. had to take a shot...I liked my odds

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 10:03 PM) I fully expect Garland to give up 7 or more runs in his start. Hopefully the offense will be able to flat out outscore Texas in that game. Care to put your money where your mouth is? See anyone can say some s*** like you just did and then if Garland does give up 7 you can look down on all of us from your mighty spot on top of your horse and say "I TOLD YOU SO" If the Sox win, however, you can just be like "woohoo sox win" Maybe if we invest a little something besides just your words on your 7 or more earned runs prediction?? Say $50 ??