Controlled Chaos

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) I have to say, on this board anyway, I see a LOT more of the GOP'ers saying the Dems will blame everything on Bush, then any liberals or anyone else actually doing so. I've said it before, the GOP is vastly superior to the Dems at marketing. This is not an insult, its a compliment. They are particularly good at theme-building (Dems complain about everything and never contribute ideas), and reverse-position placement (defend the theft of freedoms by calling it defending freedom). Combine them, and the result is the argument made in this thread. Neat trick, huh? It works on a significant chunk of the soft middle of the electorate. I don't think it's marketing as much as I think most people believe in the inherent good of other people. Most democrats want me to believe Bush is a bad evil person and I don't. I'm supposed to believe he is a racist, oil hungry, religious crazed, war mongering, anti evironmentalist who hates women and our civil liberties. Well I don't believe it. I believe he wants the best for this country, and while his opinions may differ from others, he isn't an evil person. He isn't out to hurt the poor and help the rich. He didn't go to war for oil. He wasn't sitting at his desk in the white house saying....slow down with the help for New Orleans, they're mostly black people. He isn't spying on two old ladies chatting about their next crocheting project. The more ridiculous the accusations democrats come up with the more I tend to not believe them. That's what works on a significant chunk of the soft middle of the electorate

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) I was totally into these guys in college, By far my favorite presidents. She's Lump, She's Lump, She's Lump, She might be dead!!

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) Reading this article, and I just now took a look at it, makes me a bit angry. #1 you don't go to a White House function that honors sports teasm/heroes with the idea of making a political statement, and by not going I don't see why that should be taken as an insult. That's what makes America great too-freedom of choice and love of your family. He wants to be with his family so try and read something political into that... I guess moronic reporting does. Let me just say I don't particularly side with Telander here....but I just wanted to give some educated insight to the other side... Ozzie won't be going on a vacation for the next 7-8 months. If he wants to go on a vacation before he has to work for about the next 240 consecutive days, then he should be able to do so. I personally, would have found a way to go to the White House, but it's certainly his right, not to interrupt his trip and I won't hold anythign against him for it.

Telander article on Ozzie no show. Oh and by the way, I am no fan of North in fact, I can't stand him, but isn't labeling someone a racist without anything to back it up a little ridiculous. That woprd gets tossed around way too much. For the record, all of you can consider me a flag waving yahoo. It's not where he is, it's why February 13, 2006 BY RICK TELANDER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Ozzie Guillen told the Sun-Times on Friday that his decision to skip the White Sox' celebratory visit to the White House today was "not a political decision.'' I wish it had been. In truth, it is, no matter what Ozzie thinks. When the manager of the long-suffering, abruptly-feel-good 2005 World Series champions -- himself an up-by-the-bootstraps, recently naturalized citizen of the United States -- says President Bush can hold the party without him, its most important guest, it says a bundle. "It's a statement that I would rather spend time with my wife and family,'' Guillen explained. "It's a family-values statement.'' No, it isn't. It's a statement that the leader of the most powerful country in the free world is no more relevant to a free spirit like Ozzie than those pesky magazine writers and TV hosts who always want just a few more minutes of his valued time. What does this say to the multitudes of already disengaged citizens of our land, to slacker kids, especially, who have cynicism and laziness stenciled across their foreheads like cheap tattoos? No, you don't have to go see the president when he calls. And that is the beauty of our republic, based as it is on the premise that all men are created equal and that the sovereignty of an individual is no less than the sovereignty of the many or the powerful. Nor is there a king here. But you should have a reason for not going. I was in the Dominican Republic last spring, where the Guillen family is vacationing, and last I checked, you could fly out of there to mainland America pretty easily. Especially since Guillen knew of this twice-changed date a month ago. A pain in the behind? Yes. Overwhelmingly ugh? No. People say Guillen already visited Bush in the White House when Guillen was a coach for the Florida Marlins after that team won the Series in 2003. Yes, but he was a man in search of a big-time job back then. Now he has it. Now he's an island. I find it almost pathetic that other Sox members are missing the event, too, including outfielder Scott Podsednik, who is skipping the prez because Pods is on his honeymoon. (Excuse me, but a new bride who can't spare you for one night might not understand that World Series championships come along a lot less frequently than big hugs.) Is this about patriotism and being a good citizen? Absolutely. Is it about loving your elected leader and showing fealty to the ring? Absolutely not. My hero in all this is Sox general manager Ken Williams, also a harried, time-deprived, devoted family man, who is going to the ceremony even though he disapproves strongly of the administration's war in Iraq. Williams will rise even higher in my eyes if he lets Bush know how he feels. Respectfully. Off camera, perhaps. Man to man. Somehow. Some way. This is what a president should expect from engaged citizens when he invites them to his place. This is what he should expect from those who agree with him and from those who disagree. It is pitiable that our highest-profile athletes have become bland, know-nothing, good-time consumers of stuff. They seem to exist in capsules devoid of real-world ponderings and opinion. They have no time to think about the era in which they live, the responsibilities of a nation that is accused of smugness and bullying and myopia even as it changes the planet around it. Maybe it wasn't Michael Jordan who started it, but his kind of shrug-the-shoulders social commentary has proliferated to the extent that it makes one crave the old and uncomfortable involvement of superstars such as Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe and Jim Brown. We see people in third-world countries and just-tumbled dictatorships voting, when able, at the highest levels of participation. You know how they must marvel at the apathy of Americans, who need not be politically active because our government can cruise along on autopilot. Guillen's slap in the face of George Bush, unwitting or not, is actually a slap in the face of our nation's status as a democratic model to the world. What does it mean when a rich and famous man would rather lie in the sun than shake hands with his country's highest public servant and tell him what he thinks? Ozzie, it's OK to embarrass anyone and anything. You just shouldn't do it for no reason.

The Queer Muhammad: an experiment in tolerance The Queer Muhammad: an experiment in tolerance Feb 13, 2006 by Mike S. Adams Dear (NEA Chairman) Dana Gioia: I write to you today, not with a request, but with a demand. I’ve been sitting back patiently while the NEA has been promoting anti-Christian “art” for a number of years. In fact, one could say that I have been supporting it, too, given that my tax dollars have been spent on this garbage. And maybe I’ve been supporting it in another way by refusing to write you to express my frustration. That is, until now. In the spirit of the “separation of church and state,” my demand is that you commission a painting – fully funded with tax dollars – that has one intention and one intention only: To offend Muslims everywhere. This new painting will help the NEA avoid any accusations of state sponsorship of religion by insulting some religion other than Christianity. In the past, you’ve supported the “Piss Christ” and the “Elephant Dung Mary.” Now, I’m asking you to fund the “Queer Muhammad.” For this painting, I want the artist to put the Prophet Muhammad in a pink bathrobe. I also want him holding a little toy poodle. Finally, I would like you to feature him reading a copy of “Playgirl” magazine. If you want to get daring, you can also feature him French-kissing Salmon Rushdie. Or better yet, feature him French-kissing Jacques Chirac. Regardless of the precise form it takes, I want five million reproductions of the “Queer Muhammad” in poster form. It may sound like a large order for a first printing. But here’s what I intend to do with them: First, I’m going to staple a “Queer Muhammad” on the door of Barbara Streisand. She’s been a real pain in the ass throughout this whole War on Terror. I want to see whether she gains some respect for George W. Bush after Islamic fascists torch her Southern California estate – all for expecting adherents to the “religion of peace” to be as tolerant of homosexuality as Hollywood liberals. And, then, I’m heading to the Upper West Side to place a “Queer Muhammad” on the door of Michael Moore. That fat joker will be begging Charlton Heston for a gun by the time the New York City Muslims throw their first Molotov cocktail. Next, we’re off to Colorado to the home of Ward Churchill. After I place a “Queer Muhammad” on his home, I’ll put one on his office door at the university. And, while I’m at it, I’ll hit the office doors of every anti-war professor in America. I also plan to visit all those professors who have “Darwin fish” on their university office doors. For years, they’ve been desecrating a sacred Christian symbol with impunity. Come to think of it, many have been desecrating an Old Testament religious symbol by using rainbows as a backdrop for those “celebrate diversity” bumper stickers. When they place those on their office doors, they do more than just promote acceptance of sodomy. They ridicule a covenant between God and Noah. Maybe after the Muslim Student Associations begin ripping down the “Queer Muhammad” posters – always leaving the Darwin fish intact - some of these professors will begin to realize that white Christian heterosexual males really aren’t so bad after all. And maybe some will realize that young Muslim males are the most dangerous demographic group on the face of the planet. But the professors and the movie stars won’t be the only ones included in my little experiment in tolerance and diversity. I want to make sure to include members of the gay community, too. That’s why the “Queer Muhammad” will be posted on the door of every gay bar in San Francisco. Under my plan, when California Muslims attack these businesses, the gay political lobby will finally have some use for politically correct and seldom-used “hate crimes” legislation. It will also give that large segment of the gay population – the ones who always need something to whine about – something legitimate to whine about. And it will give Christians a break from the gay mission to invade and pervert the Christian clergy. That will leave me with about four million “Queer Muhammad” posters for the most ambitious aspect of my plan. This involves hanging posters on the doors of every active member of the National Rifle Association. When the Islamic fascists begin hurling stones at the houses of NRA members, many of my brothers (and sisters)-in-arms will start heading for the nearest gun safe. I know I will. Maybe a few of these violent Muslims will survive their attack on the First Amendment, after it is thwarted by the Second Amendment. If so, I have a special plan for the Islamic fascist survivors. This plan was inspired by my realization that so many members of the anti-war movement are also members of the pro-gay movement. Here it is, in all its leftist-inspired brilliance: The NRA members whose homes were attacked will all petition local Democratic prosecutors, the media, and even their Democratic legislators to charge the fascists with hate crimes for attacking the image of the “Queer Muhammad.” This will draw a line in the sand for these Democrats. Will they side with the Muslims against the gays? Or will they side with the gays against the Muslims? If things work according to my plan, we will be able to kill off a lot of these Muslim terrorists and simply claim self-defense. Even better, we’ll cause significant division and strife among the American Left. After it all goes down, I’ll head to my refrigerator instead of my gun safe. Then I’ll drink a nice, cold Carlsberg. Bottled and brewed by our allies in Denmark.

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 06:51 AM) Um, what could have been done to save New Orleans between Midnight Monday and Tuesday morning? Just asking. You don't get it man...Bush hates black people. I almost forgot about that until Carter reminded me at Coretta Scott King's funeral.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 12:00 AM) I just think it's pretty lame to start a thread titled 'Rap Sucks'. It's a very popular form of music and I take offense when I hear a comment like that. Can you imagine the uproar if I started a 'Dave Matthews Band Sucks' or 'U2 Sucks' thread? Uproar?? Dam dude we're talking about music here not Mohammed....

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 06:47 PM) Stossel's argument is "common sense" but it is desperately misleading. Unfortunately, I can't find a e-copy of Richard Rothstein's "A Wider Lens on the Black-White Achievement Gap" but the gist of it is argued here at this site: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v86/k0410lew.htm Holding teachers "accountable" for test scores is overly simplistic and ultimately, quite stupid. A teacher sees a kid for 45 minutes to a little over an hour a day in the classroom. The kid is affected by home life, other classes, hobbies, extracurriculars, etc. etc. etc. I have a kid in a class I'm teaching right now that is always very tired when he is at school because he has to stay up late to help his siblings while his parents work. Taking Stossel's line of thought -- it would then be my fault if his test scores aren't up to snuff because he is dead tired when he gets to school. He could know all the information (and he does), his grades just take a hit because he lacks the time to do the assignments due to other things that I mentioned before (his parents working and therefore he has added responsibilities) Then if the parents don't work, they get taken to task for being lazy parents and the whole "leeches on welfare" argument. It is difficult for a teacher to control a student's behavior out of the school and out of the classroom -- yet the teacher becomes "accountable" even though numerous other factors can influence the success of a child in the schoolroom. Stossel's argument is a "feel-good" argument with little substance behind it. It should also be known that his only expertice in the field of education is having attended the public school system with no emphasis on the field of study. And Knolls, averages can be misleading. Try a more accurate stat like the median. It would also help to look at how much goes to administrative costs (i.e. heating, busing, free/reduced lunch programs, etc.) that are not direct instruction costs but are necessary to keep the student in the school so they are able to learn. Wow...I wish you were my teacher. My dog ate my homework!! That's ok son...it's not your fault.

Did anyone here by tickets for spring training games?? I bought some Jan 18th and still haven't receiverd them. Just wondering if thats the norm.

FACT - You people know absolutely nothing regarding Saddam's WMD's. I don't know if he hid them or moved them and you don't know if he turned them all in and decided to be a nice boy. Nobody here knows any FACTS. Saddam didn't want us to know facts. Instead of saying one guy is full of s*** and speculating, while you in turn do your own specualting....just debate your opinions. You don't have anything concrete over anybody else.

Those WMD's are somewhere. Saddam didn't all of a sudden decide to be mr nice guy. They can be anywhere. A reported 30 to 40 planes, including several MiG-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets, buried more than 10 feet beneath tons of soil Iraq is a big place, as is Syria.

Go directly to the article for all the links in it. THE COWARDLY AMERICAN MEDIA By Michelle Malkin · February 02, 2006 08:03 PM Read this CNN report very carefully: The international storm over cartoon drawings of the Prophet Mohammad published in European media gathered pace across the Islamic world Thursday with angry demonstrations and the shutting down of the EU office in Gaza City. In Paris, the daily newspaper France Soir fired its managing editor after it republished the caricatures Wednesday, and in Pakistan protesters marched chanting "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France." Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying the cartoons -- one depicting the founder of Islam wearing a turban resembling a bomb --showed press freedom should have its limits. Muslims consider it sacrilegious to produce a likeness of the Prophet Mohammad. CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam. Unbelievable. The news network reports on an international controversy, but refuses to show readers what the news is actually about and let them judge the cartoons for themselves. Even more galling is CNN's newfound respect for religion. Where was that deference when Ted Turner was calling Catholics "Jesus Freaks?" Where was the sensitivity about offensive religious imagery when Jeanne Moos was mocking images of Jesus Christ or Jonathan Mann was reporting on the Virgin Mary covered in dung? Why is it that American media, including CNN, have absolutely no qualms about splashing Kanye West-as-Christ all over the airwaves and Internet... ...but can't bring themselves to print the Forbidden Cartoons gallery (now available in thumbnail and full-size images over at Human Events Online, which is also running the photos with my column this week): Reader Jake G. e-mails that NBC Nightly News tonight also refused to show the cartoons: Just when I thought NBC might have had a moment of clarity (HA! Yeah, right!), I heard them tease a story on this for the Nightly News tonight. In the middle of the segment, the dropped the ball completely, refusing to show the cartoons! They made some weak statement about how they decided against airing the images out of respect for Muslims. This from the network that showed no respect for Christians when it forged ahead with the religion-mocking show, "The Book of Daniel." This from the network that plans to feature Britney Spears as the host of a fictional cooking segment called "Cruci-fixin's" in an upcoming "Will & Grace" epsiode: NBC announced this week that pop star Britney Spears would make a guest appearance on the gay-oriented sitcom [Will & Grace] as a Christian conservative hired as a talk show sidekick to the gay character Jack played by series regular Sean Hayes. In the episode, scheduled to air on April 13, Jack's fictional TV network is bought by a Christian broadcaster, leading Spears' character to do an Easter cooking segment on Jack's show called "Cruci-fixin's." The American Family Association immediately raised objections to the planned episode, saying it "mocks the crucifixion of Christ" and will "further denigrate Christianity" by airing the night before Good Friday. "Out of respect" for Islam and Muslims? No. Out of fear. *** Meanwhile, still no word from the MSM on how Islamists faked cartoons and attributed them to the Danes (noted here this a.m.) to inflame the Arab world. More on this from Lorenzo Vidino at The Counterterrorism Blog. 1015pm EST. The New York Times covers the story on the web tonight (for tomorrow's print edition), but has no room to link to or print the cartoons. Excellent commentary tonight from Dr. Sanity, who writes about the Highway to Hell: Just as the false promises of socialism and communism were found to lead to misery instead of happiness; poverty instead of wealth; enslavement instead of freedom--so too, have multiculturalism and political correctness, instead of harmony, brought lethal discord. There can be no backing down now; because to compromise on this would be disaster--in every way the beginning of the end of our own values, freedoms, and culture. Besides, it is compromise that has brought us to this unbelievable situation in the first place. The very first time we allowed the adherents of a medieval and primitive religion to believe that their feelings about that religion trump all the values of western civiliztion; the minute we began to apologize for our successes and make excuses--or even blame ourselves--for their failures; we were bound to come to this place... Wretchard at The Belmont Club also has trenchant analysis, as always, on the continuing cartoon crisis and its much, much larger repercussions. Go read. 1100pm EST. The top Technorati search is "jyllands-posten mohammed." Technorati tag: Buy Danish Judith Apter Klinghoffer: "Does the American MSM know the meaning of solidarity?" An excerpt: Danish cartoonists need 24 hour protection. Another bounty was put on them today. The Le Monde cartoonist responds by drawing a portrait of Muhammad is entirely made up of lines saying "I must not draw Muhammad." What do American cartoonist do? Well, The one working for the Washington Post draws the American army as a critically wounded soldier who lost both hands and legs. The Islamists could not have asked for anything more. Didn't Bin Laden and company assure them that one more push and the US will collapse just as the USSR did? The Danish PM Fogh was on arab television today, the interviewer asked him: "Please explain to us: why haven't you yet punished the newspapermen?" A second editor is fired. This time it is Jihad El Momeni, a Jordanian editor, who keeps alive the hope of moderate Islam. In an editorial accompanying the cartoons he asks: "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" Reader John S. reports that ABC's Nightline bucked the MSM trend and showed some of the cartoons: It was done very matter-of-factly. While Cynthia McFadden talked about the ruckus, video of the nutjob protests in Gaza was shown followed by the cartoons. The three most offensive ones were shown up close and described. More: The LA Times has an article on the forbidden cartoons, but not the forbidden cartoons themselves. Same deal at the Washington Post. Ditto Time magazine. The Dominion Post, a New Zealand paper, is set to run the artwork. 2/3/06 8am EST morning update. A reader reports: "The BBC News segment carried by the Albuquerque PBS affiliate KNME showed at least a few of the cartoons, including the bomb turban, as did the PBS News Hour." Fox News Channel's Brit Hume also aired some of the artwork. As did ABC News. Information just wants to be free. ***

Learning to read in South Carolina by John Stossel With public schools spending more than $100,000 per student on K-12 education, you'd think they could teach students how to read and write. South Carolina is one of many states to have trouble with this. It spends $9,000 per student per year, and its state school superintendent told me South Carolina has been "ranked as having some of the highest standards of learning in the entire country." So let's ask the infamous question, "Is our children learning?" Dorian Cain told me he wants to learn to read. He's 18 years old and in 12th grade, but when I asked him to read from a first-grade level book, he struggled with it. "Did they try to teach you to read?" I asked him. "From time to time." His mom, Gena Cain, has been trying to get him help for years. If Dorian were in private school, or if South Carolina allowed parents to choose schools the way we choose other products and services in life, Dorian and Gena would be "customers" and able to go elsewhere -- if any school were dumb enough to serve a customer as poorly as Dorian has been served. But since Gena is merely a taxpayer, forced to pay for the public schools whether they do her any good or not, she can't even demand a better education for her son. "You have to beg," she said. "Whatever you ask for, you're begging. Because they have the power." They do. What are you going to do -- go elsewhere? Gena can't afford that. Gena's begging eventually got results -- just not results that helped her son. What the school bureaucrats did was hold meetings to talk about Dorian. (Bureaucrats are good at holding meetings.) At the meeting we watched, lots of important people attended: a director of programs for exceptional children, a resource teacher, a district special education coordinator, a counselor and even a gym teacher. The meeting went on for 45 minutes. "I'm seeing great progress in him," said the principal. "So I don't have any concerns." Well, Gena still had a concern: Her son could barely read. Was Dorian just incapable of learning? No. ABC News did see great progress in him -- when we sent him to a private, for-profit tutoring center. In just 72 hours of tutoring, Sylvan Learning Center brought Dorian's reading up more than two grade levels. In 72 hours, a private company did what South Carolina's government schools could not do in over 12 years. President Bush's answer to school systems that pass students like Dorian on to the next grade year after year was "No Child Left Behind." It demands that states test students, and it establishes consequences for schools whose students consistently do poorly. Teachers in at least one South Carolina school responded to the pressures of the law by giving some students the answers to the test in advance, said Dale Hammond, grandmother of one such boy. "They were teaching him to cheat!" she told me. She promptly pulled her grandson out of that government school and enrolled him in private school, but most parents can't afford that. Once you've been taxed to support the public schools and other wastes of public money, you don't have a lot left to spring for private school tuition. But there is good news, said the state school's superintendent: South Carolina is seeing great progress in some areas. "We are ranked No. 1 in the country," she bragged, "on improvement on SAT." That's great. But when you're ranked at the bottom, improvement doesn't mean much, and South Carolina, even after its "No. 1 improvement" is still last among states. SATs don't make for perfect comparisons because states have different participation rates, but South Carolina's participation rate is about average, and yet its students perform well below the average. That's not good. Yet the superintendent said, "We are making tremendous progress in South Carolina, and we're very proud." In government monopolies, that's how bureaucrats think.

It's interesting they even went to court. I was busted underage drinking in Chicago and Indiana and both times my parents just had to come to the police station and pick me up. I never had to go to court or anything. I did however have to listen to my dad b****, moan and yell the whole way home for having to come to Indiana at 1:00 in the morning. I don't have a problem with what the judge did, I was just wondering why I never had to go to court or anything. Especially in Indiana, I was giving the cops so much s***. I was telling them they are just pissed cause the Bulls won the championship and the Pacers sucked...and they're taking it out on us cause we're from Chicago. I told them this is bulls***, they're just suppose to take our beer away or pour it out, not arrest us.....and I was hitting on the lady cop who was smoking hot from what I remember. Even so I only got a ticket and my parents had to pick me up. I did have some friends that were 18 though and they did go to jail and had to post bound. ahhh ding dong...the bell just went off in my head. Was that the case here?? These kids were 18?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) Yeah, thanks to the fact that the 3 obvious contenders for Coach of the Year in the NFL this year were all African American, there was a huge surge in African American coach hiring this year. Right? Yes, 3 people with a darker skin color did a good job coaching...we should hire more....THAT's a great reason.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) one article that is essentially an opinion piece does not constitute proof to me. besides, i thought we were talking about the media being desirous of a black quarterback being successful. if you want to turn this into a some broad-based discussion of how the white man is kept down and discriminated against (lol), then have that discussion with someone else are there a lot of stories about white receivers? no. but have white receivers historically been an oddity? no. black quarterbacks have. Here's some more for ya....and yeah they're opinions...the whole thing is an opinion. The statement I made is my opinion. Rush Limbaugh Was Right Rush Limbaugh is being branded as a racist because of his remarks about Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles. Said Rush: "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well; I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team." First I will comment on the accuracy of Rush’s remark in regards to Donovan McNabb. For any football fan that gobbles up statistics, look at Donovan McNabb’s stats and they read: he is just average. His stats are average at best, and below average at times. Except for his running game, which is always spectacular. Look at his QB Rating over the last few years; he’s not at the top of the heap. However, diehard football fans know that McNabb is one of those players that are far better than his stats. Why? He has a huge presence on the field; he’s a superb athlete with great size; he's a strong, feared leader; and he doesn’t make a lot of critical mistakes. Look at his TD-to-interception ratio, and that means he's not a game-blower. He’s a steady, cool hand that can run like heck, and therefore he’s a threat every time he takes a snap. But he's not a dominating game-breaker either. McNabb is not the nucleus of the Eagles; it was not he who was instrumental in his team being one of the top teams in the NFL last year. It was the great defense. Rush was right. People ask, why then, did Rush have to bring up the "black thing?" The reason Rush interjected race was that he, I believe, just hates political correctness, as many of us do. We are sick and tired of it. And racial political correctness pervades sports everywhere and everyplace. As a confessed football fanatic for many, many years, I love the game, and I am tired of affirmative action dragging its demons and Jesse Jacksonisms into this game that I love so much. I watch, and have watched for years, all of the NFL pre-game shows on the tube, from the ESPN shows to Inside the NFL to Fox NFL Sunday. Black quarterbacks and coaches are singled out for hiring, praise, and constant attention, and if it is too un-PC for me to say that, I say tough. If it is not true, then why does the NFL have a policy stating that teams must adhere to a quota system when interviewing head coaches? If Rush was so wrong, why then did the NFL fine the Detroit Lions nearly a quarter-of-a-million dollars for hiring a white head coach (Steve Mariucci) without interviewing a single black coach? If Rush was wrong, why does the NFL require teams to interview minority coaching candidates before hiring a coach? Why does the NFL apply constant pressure to teams to hire black coaches? Here’s the kicker with the Detroit Lions scam: the Lions have been set up to run a West-Coast offense, player and personnel-wise. The current management team was brought in to run a West Coast-style offense (named after the SF 49’ers offense run by Joe Montana), players were brought in that were adaptable to this offense, and when the prior coach didn’t work out, Steve Mariucci, a white guy, and the best West-Coast offense guy in the game, happened to become available. Yoo-Hoo!, said Lions fans, including me. Mariucci is a proven winner. The Lions knew they had to interview some black coaches, to conform to the quota system, so they tried to accomplish that task. But guess what? None of the black coaches invited to interview with the Lions would accept the invite, because they were all damn smart enough to know that Mariucci was the best West-Coast guy in the league, the guy that could best run the Lion’s offense as it had been built, and he was available, and that meant he would be the guy to get the job. So black coaches like Dennis Green said, why should I waste my time even interviewing? These guys didn't want to fly all the way out to Detroit to fill a quota interview. They also knew the Lions' coaching decision wasn’t about black-and-white; they knew it was strategic football planning. Subsequently, why are the commentators and players always talking about the fact that skin color is irrelevant, such as Donovan McNabb did this week, when in fact teams are being forced to adhere to quota systems for hiring, and being fined and condemned when they do not? McNabb said: "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal." Yes Donovan, it is sad. Sports teams are a business, and it is all about winning. But no Donovan, we are not over skin color. Look around you, at the NFL and its rules. Affirmative action and racial-political correctness both flourish. The Detroit Tigers baseball club was also publicly condemned for hiring the white Phil Garner, as manager of the team a few years ago. Hiring white provokes a fight. What did the NAACP do because the Tigers interviewed no black candidates? They started a boycott, and their coercive pressure forced the offices of Major League Baseball to publicly spank the Tiger’s owner and management. I once worked in corporate treasury for an organization that owned two professional sports teams. The office went off into a drunken escapade when we won, and near-depression when we didn’t, because that meant millions lost, and it translated into disaster come raise/bonus time, and it also hurt the success of the organization overall. It was and is all about the bottom lines – winning and money. In regards to football analysis itself, in terms of black quarterbacks like Aaron Brooks, Daunte Culpepper, Kordell Stewart, Quincy Carter, and Michael Vick, many are overrated or average, except Daunte Culpepper, who I think is one of the most exciting QBs in the game already, and he's still a puppy. Michael Vick can run like hell, but he's not the QB that everyone makes him out to be. He doesn't do a whole lot outside of his running game, yet commentators drool over him as if he is changing the entire nature of quarterbacking in the NFL. He is not; he likely will not. He's a blast to watch, but his style usually doesn't win championships, especially when he slows down as he gets older. Drop-back, in-the-pocket quarterbacks win championships, especially when they have a defense like the Eagles had last year to help them along. The reason McNabb has been so successful at his position is that he's smart, solid, and mistake-free for the most part. And he's a sufficient passer when he stays in the pocket. Kordell Stewart – a great athlete – bombed because they put him at a position where he couldn't utilize his best skills. Like Doug Williams, Vick has a super-strong arm, but he’s tossing the ball to Alaska when his receivers are in Oregon. And Doug Williams? He was the favorite of the politically correct crowd, and an average black quarterback whose team happened to get to the Super Bowl. Again, a heck of a strong arm that could throw the play-action from Tampa Bay to Detroit, but couldn’t consistently hit his receivers ten yards up the field. So must we over-celebrate players just because they are playing in non-traditional roles? Can't we just quietly accept that the game is naturally evolving to a degree? What about attributes? Is it too politically incorrect to talk about the attributes of blacks as versus whites in sports? Jimmy the Greek wouldn’t want to answer that one. The current crop of black quarterbacks aren't as well-suited to the drop-back, in-the-pocket, accurate-passing quarterback position. Most black quarterbacks, current and past, have relied on running, speed, power, and moves, and that is what people expect of them. And white guys are rarely (if ever) suited to the nimble, herky-jerky, deftly-moving, ultra-quick tailback position. How many black quarterbacks play a game like Montana, Elway, Marino, etc.? There have only been a few. And name me one white running back that ran/moved like Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, or Billy Sims. White running backs – the few that there are – play fullback, and run the straight-ahead, slower, power game like Mike Alstott and Cory Schlesinger. Is it a sin to note this? How can someone like me watch, follow, and obsess on this game for so long, and not notice it? The black coach and black quarterback worshipping is a product of political correctness; it exists, it is real, and it is indeed tiresome. Why does nobody question why the Dusty Baker incident went by so quietly, when he actually spoke more like a racist – as the media would term it – in terms of talking about characteristics in which blacks were superior to whites? He was talking about how whites and blacks adapt differently to the hot weather, and of course, Dusty Baker was entirely correct. He is not a racist. I thought his remarks were fascinating, and besides, can’t those remarks be substantiated by anthropology? But the media was fairly passive about that incident because Baker is black. Rush Limbaugh – a neocon-Republican shill that I almost never agree with – is a heck of a football mind. He knows the game, and I'll always give him that. Dusty Baker was speaking on the basis of his years of experience with the game and the people who play it, and so was Rush. Rush was sensationalizing his remarks up, as these radio talk show guys do, and that is a different matter. He was guilty of stupidly throwing out political incorrectness at a very unforgiving, PC crowd. His purpose/job was to comment on football, not politics in football. Stupid, yes. But that does not make him a racist. Should he have been fired if he didn't resign? Yes, his brand of politics did not belong on the show, and certainly not framed in that context. Rush was right, but irresponsible and stupid all the same. Rush Limbaugh Was Right Rush Limbaugh Was Right Donovan McNabb isn't a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he is black. By Allen Barra Posted Thursday, Oct. 2, 2003, at 6:33 PM ET Limbaugh leaves over unfair football flap In his notorious ESPN comments last Sunday night, Rush Limbaugh said he never thought the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb was "that good of a quarterback." If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, "Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback." But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons. Let's review: McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well." "There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team." Let's take the football stuff first. For the past four seasons, the Philadelphia Eagles have had one of the best defenses in the National Football League and have failed to make it to the Super Bowl primarily because of an ineffective offense—an offense run by Donovan McNabb. McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. (For the record, I helped persuade ESPN Magazine, then called ESPN Total Sports, to put him on the cover of the 1998 college-football preview issue.) He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL, but that talent has not translated into greatness as a pro quarterback. McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003. In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it. The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this? Let's look at a quarterback with similar numbers who also plays for a team with a great defense. I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson one of the best quarterbacks in pro football—which is how McNabb is often referred to. In fact, I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson, on the evidence of his 10-year NFL career, much more than mediocre. Yet, Johnson's NFL career passer rating, as of last Sunday, is 7.3 points higher than McNabb's (84.8 to 77.5), he has completed his passes at a higher rate (61.8 percent to 56.4 percent), and has averaged significantly more yards per pass (6.84 to 5.91). McNabb excels in just one area, running, where he has gained 2,040 yards and scored 14 touchdowns to Johnson's 467 and seven. But McNabb has also been sacked more frequently than Johnson—more than once, on average, per game, which negates much of the rushing advantage. In other words, in just about every way, Brad Johnson has been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period. And even if you say the stats don't matter and that a quarterback's job is to win games, Johnson comes out ahead. Johnson has something McNabb doesn't, a Super Bowl ring, which he went on to win after his Bucs trounced McNabb's Eagles in last year's NFC championship game by a score of 27-10. The Bucs and Eagles were regarded by everyone as having the two best defenses in the NFL last year. When they played in the championship game, the difference was that the Bucs defense completely bottled up McNabb while the Eagles defense couldn't stop Johnson. In terms of performance, many NFL quarterbacks should be ranked ahead of McNabb. But McNabb has represented something special to all of us since he started his first game in the NFL, and we all know what that is. Limbaugh is being excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s. (The topic really caught fire after 1988, when Doug Williams of the Washington Redskins became the first black quarterback to win a Super Bowl.) So far, no black quarterback has been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players are black. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black. (Please, I don't need to be reminded that McNabb's situation is not so difficult or important as Robinson's—I'm talking about a principle.) Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. I'm sorry to have to say it; he is the quarterback for a team I root for. Instead of calling him overrated, I wish I could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that I and a great many other sportswriters have chosen for the past few years to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because we want him to be. Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh is right. He didn't say anything that he shouldn't have said, and in fact he said things that other commentators should have been saying for some time now. I should have said them myself. I mean, if they didn't hire Rush Limbaugh to say things like this, what did they hire him for? To talk about the prevent defense?

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 10:12 AM) i didn't mention the nfl. i'm sure they want black quarterbacks to succeed. they want everyone to succeed. it's good for business. more jersey sales, more broad-based interest etc. but limbaugh didn't address the nfl, nor did i. he and i spoke to the media, and that's where we differ. of course those stories are going to be reported. they are reported because they are out-of-the-ordinary. is this representative of the media being "desirous" of black quarterbacks succeeding? not in my view. Out of the ordinary is a white wide receiver. Do you see articles written about Jurevicous being a good "white" receiver?? How about Ricky Proehl? Know any good white running backs?? How about an article of college recruiters telling white high school kids...Don't try to make it as a wide receiver or a running back cause nobody will even look at you? How about an article like this, which I can't believe I even found. I love the Matt Jones example... NFL Teams (And Sports Journalists) Discriminating Against White Players By Steve Sailer When I was in college in the late 1970s, I had a friend who was blind—and also a fanatic football fan. At parties, he'd challenge anyone to name any National Football League game played in the last 20 years and he'd tell them the score. Once he rang my doorbell early to ask if he could borrow the sports section. Intrigued by what a blind man would do with a newspaper, I followed him. I found that he owned a state of the art (for the 1970s) optical scanner that converted printed text into Braille, one letter at a time. He could then feel it with his index finger. I sometimes wonder what it must be like to be a blind football fan today and have to rely on sportswriters rather than your own eyes. You'd probably assume, from scanning hundreds of impassioned columns over the years, that the only racial imbalance at any position in the history of the NFL has been at quarterback, where blacks had been grievously discriminated against until very recently. You would almost certainly have never read that, at the second most glamorous position, tailback (the main ball carrier), none of the 64 starters and second-teamers was white at the start of the 2004 season. Similarly, you'd never hear that not one of the 64 starting cornerbacks in the NFL is white. Why do sportswriters almost never mention what everybody can see with their own eyes? My theory: sportswriters suffer from an inferiority complex. They worry that hard news journalists snicker at them for spending their days hanging around locker rooms, trying to extract usable quotes from men with necks thicker than their heads. Hence sportswriters tend to be the most fervent exponents of the Mainstream Media's liberal party line. Back in the 1970s, the Washington Post's sportswriters drove out of town George Allen, the Hall of Fame coach of the Washington Redskins (and father of Senator George Allen Jr. (R-Va), the potential 2008 Presidential candidate), because Allen reminded them of Richard Nixon. Vanquishing him made the sportswriters feel like Woodward and Bernstein. Today, sportswriters fear that the patterns of profound racial inequality so visible every weekend on televised sports offend the MSM’s reigning pieties. They feel they have to be the purest of the pure in what they dare to acknowledge. As a realist about racial differences, I'm not surprised that there is a big disparity in racial representation at tailback and cornerback. At peak condition, young black men tend to have lower body fat percentages than young white men. And, in most sports, the muscle to fat ratio is a key measure. But blacks have other, subtler traits—such as more tapered legs, with thinner calf muscles, which makes running easier because less weight needs to be moved with each stride. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, creatures built for speed, such as horses and deer, have extremely tapered legs with the big muscles that move the legs kept up high in the main part of the body. In contrast, elephants have untapered legs, which is one reason they much don't like running. But are the physical differences so large that they can account for all of the huge racial differences in the NFL? I'm increasingly doubtful. Without coaches stereotyping players into predefined positions, tailback or cornerback might be 90 or 95 percent black. But 99+ percent seems too high. It's crucial to keep in mind that traits are distributed according to bell curves. There are always overlaps between the races on any functional characteristic. Whites average about 15 points higher on IQ than blacks, but the top scoring six million African-Americans have higher IQs than the bottom scoring 100 million whites. Thus, for example, the new astronaut Bobby Satcher, who was previously a surgeon at prestigious Northwestern Memorial Hospital and has both a medical degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from MIT, is a black man who no doubt has a higher IQ than all but a small number of whites. But where are the white Bobby Satchers of football? For years, J.D. Cash's website Caste Football has argued, perhaps excessively at times, that both the NFL and big time college football discriminate against whites, slotting them into certain positions and not giving them a chance to prove themselves in “black” positions. For example, perhaps the most extraordinary athlete in college football last year was U. of Arkansas quarterback Matt Jones—an excellent running quarterback (6.6 yards per carry in his college career) and a decent passer (55 touchdowns versus 30 interceptions). At the NFL draft "combine" workout, Jones, who is 6'6" and about 230 pounds, turned in a spectacular time in the 40-yard dash of 4.37 seconds, comparable to the legendary Atlanta Falcon running quarterback Michael Vick's best-documented time of 4.36. Jones' vertical leap of 39.5 inches was also impressive. (He started on the Arkansas basketball team.) In recent years, the NFL has been snapping up running quarterbacks and hoping that they eventually mature into excellent passers (such as Donovan McNabb finally has become, but Michael Vick hasn't yet). So Jones might have seemed like a natural. There was a problem, though: unlike all the recent running quarterbacks, Jones is white. Jones was perfectly willing to switch to wide receiver, but that raised another difficulty: that's a stereotypically black position too. So, many teams wanted Jones to beef up so he could play tight end, an unglamorous blocking position where many whites are stashed. Chris Mortensen of ESPN wrote: "You know, it's funny," one AFC head coach told me last week. "We asked [Jones] about putting on some weight and playing tight end, and he made it clear that he thought it was foolish. He said, 'So you want me to put on 20 pounds and be a 4.57 guy instead of a 4.37 guy?' When you put that into context, you have to admit he makes sense." Anecdotal evidence like this is interesting. But of course data is better. However, there are so few white players at some positions in the NFL that you can't get a statistically significant sample. Still, it's possible to correlate the overall number of white players on an NFL team versus the number of games it wins during a 16 game season. A professor of sociology (who wishes to remain anonymous because researching the possibility of discrimination against whites is the shortest path to career death in academia) has crunched the latest three seasons' numbers for me. He found positive but low correlations. Teams with more whites did better. This suggests that all teams would do slightly better with more whites. However, when we looked at the data in more detail, we saw that there isn't much correlation between winning percentage and the number of white starters—suggesting that teams aren't terribly irrationally biased about evaluating the top players. But when we looked at nonstarters, a more striking pattern emerges. In 2003, the correlation between the number of whites sitting on the bench and the number of wins was a surprisingly high r = 0.38. In the social sciences, the convention is that 0.2 = low correlation, 0.4 = medium, and 0.6 = high. So, 0.38 is just under "medium." A correlation of 0.38 says that 14% (0.38 squared) of the variation in winning percentage in the 2003 season was associated with the number of white reserves. That's a remarkably large percentage in something as overwhelmingly complicated as winning in the NFL. To put that in a perspective that coaches would immediately grasp, that means that 2.2 additional white benchwarmers were associated with one additional win per team, thus changing an average 8-8 team into a possibly playoff contending 9-7 team. In 2004, the positive correlation between white benchwarmers and winning percentage was down to a less spectacular r = 0.19. But that still means that having five additional white players on the bench is associated with an additional victory. In 2005, through October 9th's games, the correlation was back up to r = 0.28. At that rate, over the course of a 16 game season, 2.9 extra white nonstarters would add one win. Why would having more white nonstarters help a team? Caste Football’s J.D. Cash has suggested that perhaps white utility players are more likely to master the playbooks for multiple positions (as suggested by their higher average IQ scores on the Wonderlic test mandated by the NFL). Or, possibly, the reason that teams with a higher number of white reserves have been winning more games is because whites are better team players about sitting on the bench without complaining about not starting. Perhaps white back-ups are less likely than black back-ups to poison the atmosphere and ruin the team spirit. After all, our society for the last 40 years has lavishly encouraged blacks to claim to be victims of injustice, so it would hardly be surprising if, among pampered egotistical athletes, whites might tend to be more likely than blacks to keep quiet for the good of the team when they feel they are being treated unfairly. Whatever the reason for this pattern, this quick study, while not definitive, is important news—both to team officials in charge of player personnel choices and also to anyone who likes to bet on football games. It would pay to extend the study over more years to see if it represents a long-term pattern, and to go into more depth to find the reasons for this apparent market failure. So what are the chances that the sports media will pick up and run with this story about discrimination against whites in the NFL? My estimate, based on past experience: somewhere in the range from zero to negative infinity. Two years ago, I showed in my UPI article "Baseball's Hidden Ethnic Bias" that baseball teams had long been irrationally discriminating against American players, white and black, in favor of more free-swinging Latins. The Caribbean players weren't actually quite as good as their gaudy batting averages suggested, because they had poorer average on-base percentages than American-born players. That story was picked up by some baseball "sabermetrician" (stathead) blogs. But professional sportswriters showed no interest whatsoever in this blatant crimethink. Hooray (not for the first time) for the internet!

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 09:06 AM) so now michael irvin's support is validation of a viewpoint. lol. anyway, i disagreed with rush's statement at the time and i still do. i would love to see any "factual" evidence that supports a broad-based media conspiracy to promote black quarterbacks. i didn't see this in chicago when kordell stewart was the quarterback, nor in cincinnati when akili smith was the quarterback, nor in atlanta now that michael vick is having issues. it seems to me that vick has justly received a lot of criticism. now, has vick also received credit? sure. rightly so when his team beat gb in gb and made it to the title game. did mcnabb receive credit? sure. but did he receive any more credit than any quarterback? not in my view. across the board quarterbacks get a lot more attention than credit. i also did not think rush's comments were racist. they were, however, political, and espn specifically told him not to inject politics into his analysis. that's why he got s***canned. I don't need Irvin to validate anything...just pointing out he is a black commentator and he didn't say Rush's comments were racist. Since you agree they weren't racist, no sense going into it any further. If you think the NFL does not want to see a Black QB succeed ...you have blinders on. Everytime there is a Black QB that is in a big game or has a big game. We have to hear about how he is a great black QB instead of just a great QB. Akili Smith's comments from this article: Smith said there’s been a perception in the league that blacks weren’t smart enough to play quarterback in the NFL and that’s why they’ve always been encouraged to play other positions. He’s out to shatter that stereotype. "That’s what it was," Smith said. "Once they figured out we (blacks) were smart enough to play the position, everybody started having confidence in us. Once we continue to show that, they’ll have confidence in the next kids coming along in this league."

QUOTE(AirScott @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) I agree, but don't really blame him. McNabb's had to deal with people discriminating him because he's black all his life, and once he gets to the NFL he's criticized because of it twice in the media. I just wish people in the media (Rush Limbaugh, the guy from the NAACP) would stop bringing it up. and just curious, I know it doesn't mean much here anyway, but was Brett Favre ever asked what he thought about TO's comments? McNabbs comment is just plain old race card bulls***. Irvin just used Favre as an example cause he is a great veteran quaterback. He didn't pick him cause he was white, he picked him cause he is respected. He was suppose to pick Brooks? Culpepper? Vick? What the f*** have they ever done? It wouldn't even be a good question if Irvin used them cause it can easily be argued that McNabb is better than all of em. Apparently, nobody can criticize McNabb without being a racist or guilty of Black on Black crime?? As for Rush Limbaugh, he never said anything racist. The NFL and the mediaare looking to find a star Black QB. They want to erase the notion that a black QB can't succeed in the NFL. That isn't a secret. It isn't racist to say that. It's a fact. The only criticisim Rush had for McNabb was that he isn't that good and maybe he was right. He said "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team." So he took a dig at the media, but he never said anything racist about McNabb. He just said he doesn't think McNabb is that good and Philly's Defense is what carried them. Just like many of us have said...Orton isn't that good....the Defense carried the Bears. If Tom Jackson made that comment is he being racist against Orton?? Just as an aside following Rush's comments Michael Irvin said..."Rush has a point"

I have no problem with it... When the guy stopped moving they stopped...works for me. If he is still on the ground fighting and squirming those cops don't know if he has a gun somwhere or a knife. He did just endanger hundreds of peoples lives with his chase, including the lives of the cops....what's to say he isn't armed?? If he had put his hands on his head or behind his back or something...then that's one thing...but I see his arms flailing around....so f*** him.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 01:06 PM) http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/13438 A tit is a tit is a tit, but yeah sure...I'd love to see 'em!!!

Put me down for a Yes!!! If some POS killed someone in my family, not only do I want them dead, I want to be the one to do it. Ben, IL

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 09:12 AM) So just how does one object to the war while supporting the Troops? It would seem to be that we have two choices Yeah Troops! Go die for whatever reason, we don't care why you are going, but if you are going Or s*** on the war and s*** on the Troops. There has to be a way to show you support the Troops by making damn certain they are fighting for a just cause, that matters. Not to support some shakey poll numbers or get the public's mind off a bj. Conservatives seem to think that as long as the President and Congress thinks soldiers should die, we should agree. Since I elect these people, I feel I have an obligation to let my voice be heard. How about....I disagree with this war. I disagree with why we're there. I dislike this administration and how they run things. However, I support the men and women fighting the war. I know they are just like me only maybe with a different opinion on why they're there. I donate money. I send over cards, food, magazines phone cards, sunblock etc... I'm supporting the people on the ground over there...but not the reason they're doing it.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 08:12 AM) I don't think snow has anything to do with the bathrooms not being stocked or cleaned, the dressing rooms having clothes from previous customers all over the place, toys in toy department all over the place from ignorant parents letting their kids play while they shop, and they also have issue with putting away stock. Every single time I go into one there are pallets of s*** everywhere BUT on the shelves they belong on... The shoe department.. oy vey.. don't even get me started on the shoe department. We buy a lot of the kids clothes at Target (me) and Wal-Mart (my mom and sister) because they grow out of them so fast... but the way Wal-Mart is here I am almost afraid to buy them stuff from there. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the pride of the employees. Up here they seem just not to care. The Wal-Mart in Orlando where my sister used to live was always amazingly clean. I've been to the one in Glen Ellyn and Downers Grove a couple times and they are nice. I had asked a guy where the big bins were to store wrapping paper and instead of pointing me in the right direction he walked me all the way there and it was on opposite side of the store. Same thing when I went there and asked for the auto section. The lady walked me all the way there...I just wanted her to steer me in the right direction. Granted you can't really judge a place on a couple of visits, but my experience was ok. I think it depends on the class of people that are shopping there. Some people are ignorant boobs and don't give a s*** about picking up after themselves. People who look at 10 pairs of shoes and don't put them back on the shelf or even in the box. People who go in the dressing room and just leave all the stuff in there. I mean it's not too often I try stuff on anymore, but when I did I never just left the shirts or pants I tried on in the dressing room. Certain people are ignorant and classless and feel everyone owes them something. This includes someone picking up after them cause "they dont work here." It just so happens a lot of those people need to shop at a bargain store such as walmart...hence the mess.