Lisa Rinni: cute, but no cigar.

Drew Lachey: ho-hum.

Tia: I think the chick judge is propping her scores up. Much better this week though.

I'm becoming a big George Hamilton fan. He's having the most fun out there and he refuses to take himself seriously.

Tatum Oneal: did she just flash a cameltoe?

Jerry: love that guy. Great routine too. Nice job.

Wrestler chick: her bod adds 1 to 2 points to her score. It's not fair. She's got to be gettin it on with the dude. I can tell.

Master P: ironically, he could use a little more hip-hop in his step.

Giselle Fernandez: nice abs, but who is she? Is she a celebrity? I thought hers was the best choreographed of the night.

Update: My mom, who previously could never be bothered with anything football related, now announces that she has a crush on Jerry Rice.

Posted by: annika at 08:50 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

There was quite a lengthy question and answer period yesterday with State Department spokesman Sean McCormack at his daily press briefing. The key quote is that the admistration now believes it is "more likely than ever" that Iran will be referred to the U.N. Security Council for resuming their nuclear research program.

I'll excerpt some of the press conference in detail because Mr. McCormack expanded on a question I had been pondering myself regarding the diplomatic option: Assuming we get Iran referred to the U.N. Security Council, what good is that going to do? You tell me if his answer makes you feel any better.

QUESTION: When you say this is likely to go to the Security Council, what is the goal of . . . sending it to the UN Security Council? Is it an effort to institute some punitive measures against Iran? Is it an effort to increase pressure on Iran to get it back to the negotiating table? I mean, what is the aim of actually moving it to the Council?

MR. MCCORMACK: Thanks for your question. As we have talked about, the goal of these diplomatic activities is to address Iran's failure to live up to its international obligations. Under -- countries sign treaties and under those treaties they say that they have certain rights. Well, along with those rights come certain obligations, to live up to the -- what you have signed up to in the treaty. In this case, it's the Nonproliferation Treaty.

The IAEA Board of Governors has found that Iran is in noncompliance with its treaty obligations. The goal of this diplomatic exercise is to bring Iran into compliance with its treaty obligations.

Now, what they say is that they want to be able to develop a peaceful nuclear program to provide energy for the Iranian people. Now, put aside the fact that they have some of the world's largest hydrocarbon reserves, and I think it's a legitimate question to ask why they need nuclear energy when they have all these energy reserves. Put that aside.

So what the international community has done, the Russian Government in particular, they have laid out for the Iranian regime a proposal that addresses their desire to have peaceful nuclear -- to develop peaceful nuclear power while giving objective guarantees to the international community that they will not use the activities -- their peaceful nuclear power activities to develop a nuclear weapon. That is what the international community suspects that they are doing right now, that for the past 15-plus years, they have, under the cover of a peaceful nuclear program, sought to develop, systematically, a nuclear weapons program.

Now, finally, these activities have come to light. The IAEA has a long list of questions concerning these activities. The EU-3 has grave concerns about Iran's activities. Russia has serious concerns about Iran's activities. We have gotten to the point now where the world understands that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. That would be a destabilizing event.

So, over the past year, the international community has come together. They have come together to try to send a clear, strong message to the Iranian regime to negotiate in a serious manner, to get Iran back in compliance with its NPT obligations. And the EU-3, as well as the Russian Government, have laid out serious, fair proposals to achieve that. Thus far, the Iranian Government has chosen not to take them up on those offers, so we now find ourselves in the position where, because of Iran's actions, it is more likely than ever they will find themselves before the Security Council on this issue.

QUESTION: But to what end? I mean, I know you said you --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think I just went through a long --

QUESTION: No, no, no, but -- I mean, are you trying to change Iranian behavior or are you just trying to cite them for noncompliance? I mean, you can do that at the IAEA.

MR. MCCORMACK: ThatÂ’s what this has been about, changing their behavior.

QUESTION: So -- but through negotiations or through punitive measures?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have sought diplomatic -- to achieve a change in behavior and still seek to change Iranian's -- Iran's behavior through diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: So you still think there's a chance? (inaudible) made a rather strong speech about a month ago to a university in Virginia, I forget which, and -- you know, he was quite -- it was a quite ominous speech, that they have one more redline to cross. There are reports now that they got 5,000 centrifuges to go. ThereÂ’s already platforms built for them and a nuclear weapons center. Do you really think there's still a way to keep them from developing nuclear weapons?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's why we're working so hard on this, Barry.

QUESTION: I know.

MR. MCCORMACK: That's why the President and the Secretary and a lot of other people in this government are spending so much time on this issue, because it is so important. It's serious business and that is, I think, the shared realization and the shared view of the -- many European countries and a number of other countries on the IAEA Board of Governors. That's why we're working so hard at this, Barry.

QUESTION: How does getting Iran into the Security Council further your goal of bringing them into compliance?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it is a diplomatic next step, Saul. They've already been found in noncompliance and the hope is that once they have now found themselves before the Security Council, that that would be an incentive for them to engage in serious negotiations on this issue. There have already -- as we talked about at length yesterday, there have already been consequences for Iran, in the fact that they find themselves almost completely isolated from the rest of the world on this -- most of the world on this issue.

You want to account for the fact that perhaps they have miscalculated in the steps that they have taken, their failure to engage in serious negotiations. So, the thought, again, as it always has been with the possibility of referral to the Security Council, is to send an even stronger diplomatic signal to the Iranian regime that they need to comply with their international treaty obligations. And the world will not stand aside as they drive towards building a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: But Sean, they did everything they possibly could to push it to the UN Security Council, because you said that if they don't come back to the negotiations, that's exactly where it's going. And they did exactly what they said they were going to do, knowing that you were going to refer them to the Security Council. So, what makes you think moving it to the Security Council is going to change their behavior when they knew all along it was going this --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, we have not gotten to that point, but if, in fact, Iran does end up at the Security Council -- the very fact that you are there, that they have crossed those lines that have caused the international community to put that issue before the Security Council, perhaps that is a signal that is strong enough to the Iranian regime that would get them to the negotiating table, in a serious way, to address these concerns.

. . .

QUESTION: . . . So, if I'm interpreting you correctly, the short-term goal is, get them referred to the UN Security Council so that they realize they've miscalculated -- so that they realize the international community really is serious about this and the consequence of that is, they go back to the negotiating table.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, our hope has always been, Saul, to resolve this through diplomatic means through negotiation, so that -- and our hope is that Iran will change its behavior. That's why we go through these diplomatic processes. The process is not an end in and of itself. It's a means to an end. The end -- the desired end is to change Iranian behavior.
[emphasis added]

Posted by: annika at 11:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1428 words, total size 8 kb.

I suppose I should be happy that the "new media" is around to do this kind of thing and keep everybody honest, but the following post at Blogs For Bush horrified me:

As of 3:00pm today, Judge Alito has already answered more questions than Justice Ginsburg did in her entire hearing.

Judge Alito:

441 Questions Asked
431 Answered
Answered 98 %

Justice Ginsburg:

384 Questions Asked
307 Answered
Answered 80%

So much for the Democrats' claims that Alito hasn't been forthcoming.

It's reductio ad absurdum.

Posted by: annika at 05:38 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

For the first poetry day of 2006, I've selected my favorite poem by Brian Turner, perhaps the best known poet of the Iraq War.

Turner is a fantastic poet, and it's no surprise to me that his Masters of Fine Arts from the University of Oregon is in poetry .

Turner—also known as Sergeant T. or 'the professor'—was a team leader in the first Stryker brigade to be sent into the combat zone, and was stationed, for much of 2004, near Mosul. He wrote his poems secretly. People in the Army knew that he had a master’s degree, but no one ever asked him what it was for—it was an M.F.A. in poetry, from the University of Oregon—and he saw no reason to advertise it. Noncommissioned officers, he says, are the 'backbone of the Army,' and 'it’s hard to be hard-nosed if you’re writing poetry.' He didn’t want his underlings to think he was writing about 'flowers and stuff like that.'

So Turner's soldier credentials are solid. "But Annika," you ask, "what's his view on the war?" Just enjoy the poem first. It stands on its own regardless of anybody's politics.

Autopsy

Camp Wolverine, Kuwait

Staff Sergeant Garza, the mortuary affairs specialist
from Missouri, switches on the music to hear
thereÂ’s a long black cloud hanging in the sky, honey,
as she slices out a Y-incision with a scalpel
from collarbone to breastplate, from the xiphoid process
down the smooth skin of the belly, bringing light
into the great cavern of the body, in the deep flesh
where she cuts the cords which bind the heart,
lifting it in her gloved palms, measuring the organ
for its weight, though she canÂ’t help but wonder
what this heart has known, the secrets it holds,
how fast this heart beat when he first kissed
Shawna Allen, her lips the soft pink carnations
of spring, how they woke at dawn in Half Moon Bay
to make love in the ice-plant dunes, their hair
tangled in salt as the foam washed in, this heart
heavy with whiskey and the long midnights
driven by rain and all that life humbles in us,
a heart made of the times his father woke him
to see a meteor shower, telling him stories
of the moon, of how the Arabs believe it gathers
the souls of the dead when it fills with light,
how it carries them to the sun once itÂ’s full,
thatÂ’s what this heart holds in GarzaÂ’s hands,
thirty-four years of a life, a montage of America,
the long caravan of moments we gather
in an unwritten epic we carry within us, what is given
in ash to the earth and sea by caring hands
if weÂ’re lucky, by someone like her,
who sings low at the chorus, saying
thereÂ’s a long black cloud hanging in the sky,
weatherÂ’s gonna break and hellÂ’s gonna fly,
baby, sweet thing, darlinÂ’.
_____________

Author’s note: Italicized lines are from “Black Wind Blowing” by Woody Guthrie.

As a veteran, what does Turner say about the War?

History may prove me wrong, but at this point in time I cannot say that the lives lost have been worth the cost. As a country, are we learning from this experience? In regard to love and relationships and personal development, I think it worth noting that there are many returning veterans who will need help for PTSD [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder]. There are many organizations which are trying to bridge the divide and offer assistance to those who need it.

Posted by: annika at 06:12 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.

1 That's why we don't put poets in charge of our national defense.

Posted by: Jake at January 11, 2006 08:30 AM (r/5D/)

2 I think I might start a Poetry Wednesday on my blog in your honor

Posted by: Jennifer at January 11, 2006 08:39 AM (8oQfj)

3 All war poetry that isn't jingoism leans toward Owen and Sassoon. All who sacrifice must ask, "Was it worth it?" Today, it is too soon to tell. For those who pick up the tab, it is hard to justify the cost. The hard part is dealing with both the grateful and ungrateful freeloader, neither of whom understand. One's effusive thanks is annoying, the other's willful ignorance is galling. Making the adjustment back to life as it was before is unringing the bell.

Posted by: Casca at January 11, 2006 10:42 AM (y9m6I)

4 Thank you, Annie, for a fine introduction to an important new voice.

Posted by: Hugo at January 11, 2006 12:57 PM (TGpyr)

5 I may have already posted this for you ... it's my favorite ... next time I'll post a baseball poem ... Edna St. Vincent Millay - Afternoon On A Hill I will be the gladdest thing Under the sun! I will touch a hundred flowers And not pick one. I will look at cliffs and clouds With quiet eyes, Watch the wind bow down the grass, And the grass rise. And when lights begin to show Up from the town, I will mark which must be mine, And then start down!

Posted by: irishlass at January 11, 2006 08:00 PM (3QdaE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From The Houston Chronicle, here's a history of Iran's nuclear mischief:

February-May 2003: International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors examine nuclear facilities in Iran, which the United States accuses of running a covert weapons program.

June 2003: IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says Iran kept certain nuclear materials and activities secret.

November 2003: The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says Iran acknowledged it produced weapons-grade uranium but there is no evidence a weapon was built.

December 2003: Iran formally signs the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to allow more intrusive inspections.

February 2004: Media reports say Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan delivered atomic weapons technology to Iran.

March 2004: The IAEA praises Iran's cooperation but criticizes past efforts to mislead the U.N. and urges Tehran to disclose all information concerning its nuclear program by June.

September 2004: Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell says Iran's nuclear program is a growing threat and calls for international sanctions.

November 2004: Iran announces the suspension of uranium enrichment and related activities amid fragile negotiations with European nations.

August 2005: Iran rejects a European Union offer of incentives in exchange for guarantees it will not pursue nuclear weaponry. Tehran announces it has resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan, and the IAEA calls an emergency meeting to deal with the crisis.

Sept. 17, 2005: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tells U.N. Security Council it is Iran's "inalienable right" to produce nuclear fuel and rejects European offer of economic incentives to halt enrichment program.

Sept. 24, 2005: IAEA passes resolution calling Iran's nuclear program "illegal and illogical" and puts Tehran one step away from Security Council action on sanctions.

Nov. 11, 2005: Plans emerge for Russian offer to enrich uranium for Iran on Russian soil.

Nov. 24, 2005: The European Union accuses Iran of possessing documents used solely for the production of nuclear arms, warns of possible referral to Security Council.

Jan. 8, 2006: Iran removes U.N. seals from nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz, effectively ending a freeze on the process that can produce fuel for nuclear weapons.

First, the upcoming March date for Mohammed ElBaradei's report to the IAEA. The report should determine whether the U.N. Security Council will meet to impose sanctions, however impotent, against Iran.

Second, the March 28th special election in Israel, which will form the new government to replace Sharon's, and consequently determine Israel's response to the Iranian threat.

Third, the date Iran gets the bomb. Obviously, the third date is unknown, and therein lies the problem.

Update: On a theme that's more related to the title of my last post, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said today that sanctions against Iran would be imposed only as "a last resort." Wait a minute, I thought "military action" was always the last resort. I guess the unspoken but logical assumption here is that a military solution is off the table for the Europeans. Again.

Nice. Thanks guys.

I'm not advocating a military solution, which has many problems as some of my commenters have pointed out. But diplomacy without teeth is always doomed to failure.

Posted by: annika at 12:54 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 4 kb.

Here's a good one:

Each of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council has told Iran to drop plans for new nuclear activities or risk being hauled before the body for possible sanctions, the Bush administration said Monday.

Although the United States and European allies have been sending that message for weeks, China and Russia are now doing the same, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

'We are working very closely with Russia, China and France and Britain on sending a clear message to the Iranians,' McCormack said.

This is exactly what the Iranians want us to do. They have no intention of negotiating away their nuclear ambition. Despite their double-talk, they've been very clear about that. I can't be the only one who gets this.

The Iranians have been very clear about another thing too:

Iran with the bomb = nuclear war.

Given that fact, nothing else in the news matters these days. Alito don't matter. Spielberg don't matter. DeLay don't matter. Kobe don't matter. Brokenback Mountain don't matter. Pink and Carey don't matter. O'Reilly and Letterman don't matter. Stern on Sirius don't matter. Pat Robertson's latest brain-fart don't matter. Schwarzenegger's fifteen stitches don't matter. etc. etc. etc.

Commentators all seem to be standing around, watching as this ship goes over the cliff. Or whatever. It's infuriating. I'd like to hear some intelligent discussion about what we should do about this big problem.

Update: More detail may be found at Arms Control Wonk.

Posted by: annika at 03:13 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm worried about you Kyle.

Posted by: annika at 10:33 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

As Butch Cassidy once remarked, "who are these guys?"

Update: 38 to 33 with 3:08 left. I hope you all took the over.

Update 2: :19 left. Oh.My.God.

Update 3: That game was as good as the ABC announcers were biased.

Posted by: annika at 08:54 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hook 'em, Horns!!

Posted by: JohnL at January 04, 2006 09:37 PM (dYzx6)

2 Holy shit! Awesome! Just awesome! Best football game I've seen in years. Fan-freakin'-tastic! And I couldn't be happier with the outcome. USC deserved that, if for no other reason than what they did to my beloved Irish.

Posted by: Matt at January 04, 2006 10:06 PM (/d8B9)

3 I got my undergrad degree at Notre Dame and my master's at Texas. I am now officially in Happycamperland! And it was one of the best games I've ever seen to boot.

Posted by: Go 4 TLI at January 04, 2006 10:07 PM (TmKwU)

4 THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!! USC IS STILL A GOOD SECOND PLACE TEAM THOUGH.

Posted by: d-rod at January 04, 2006 10:19 PM (bgRIi)

5 I shall restrain myself as I glory in my vindication. I've been right all year. I truly do feel bad for Shelly, however in six months, we'll reload and shoot it out again!

Posted by: Casca at January 04, 2006 10:49 PM (2gORp)

6 HAH, Screw Shelly, All that talk about USC threepeating. In reality they have 1 & 1/2 championships. Besides ESPN had all these scorecards of how USC could have beaten the Roman Empire, Sauron's Orc army, and the entire Jedi Council. Screw them too. YEEEHAAWW.

Posted by: kyle N at January 05, 2006 03:21 AM (wokbK)

7 Butch Cassidy? That dude the Caps fired a few years ago?

Posted by: Victor at January 05, 2006 04:24 AM (L3qPK)

8 Good point Kyle. The only time to kick a man is when he's down. Pete "go for it" Carrol, really IS a dumbass. He believed his own press clippings, and launched his invincibles against a defense that didn't even get any respect in the awards ceremony. Did you hear John Saunders handing the Defensive Player of the Game trophy to that kid from Texas? "It wasn't much of a defensive game", or words to that effect. What an ass. Tressel teaches coaching camps, maybe Carrol should go? He'd tell him, "Up by five with under two minutes left, ball at midfield, 4th and 2, let your kicking game and defense earn their keep. Whatever you do, don't pull an idiot John Cooper move and go head-to-head on the line." I believe that my opinion of Keith Jackson is already a matter of record. For the record, there were two great coaches in the BCS this year, and their teams both played Monday in Tempe. The rest are also rans. For Procain Amy, we'll be down to Austin come September in what will surely be the battle of preseason number 1 & 2. Even if you still have Vince, it's gonna be ugly, so put the kids to bed early.

Posted by: Casca at January 05, 2006 06:30 AM (y9m6I)

9 What an awesome game!! Much better than watching the Cowboys this past season.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at January 05, 2006 07:08 AM (Wz2Gp)

10 Biased? Haha. Hook 'em Horns!!! Yee-haw!!!!

Posted by: Jason H. at January 05, 2006 07:25 AM (jTuRA)

11 Casca - USC had averaged 5 1/2 yds per rush and White had over 6+ yds per attempt. I think PC made the right move to go for it - he played to win instead of not to lose. Having said that, I agree he certainly could use some coaching refreshers. (1) If you are trying to run out the clock and force the other team to burn their time outs, you don't try a pass on second down. (2) You don't keep your star player - and the Heisman Trophy winner - on the sidelines on the fourth down play. Even if you intend to run it inside, at least force the defense to consider that you have multiple options. (3) If the same guy has beaten you multiple times with essentially the same tactic (VY runs to his right), you may want to use a defensive scheme that specificaly assigns one or two players to stay there. If you get beaten by the pass, so be it. (4) Someone on his defensive/special teams staff should have known that if UT scores, they'll obviously go for two points (heck, I would have Vince Young start sprinting back to his goal and burn off the 20 seconds). Unbelievable USC had to burn a timeout. (5) Ditto on the kickoff. Why he didn't have WR and RB along the 20-30 yard line (folks who could have run with the ball) and dared UT to kick it normally is beyond me. Watch the game with TV announcers on mute and radio broadcast on.

Posted by: Col Steve at January 05, 2006 07:59 AM (pj2h7)

12 Between Carrol's ridiculous 4th down decision and two specific USC players' inability to stay home on defense(#90, #55) nearly the entire game, USC gave away a game that they should have won---- despite the entire defense forgetting how to tackle. I've literally seen high school games this year with better tackling and harder hitting. How many USC guys are gonna look at film and see themselves with their heads down and arms out, wondering how in the hell they missed a tackle. Jeeezzzz that's frustrating to watch. p.s. I don't even know where to begin with Bush's "lateral."

Posted by: Blu at January 05, 2006 08:03 AM (xWE3I)

13 We lost, they won. They deserved to win, we didn't. We made bonehead plays (the lateral by Bush was just plain hot-dogging). We had several opportunies and couldn't convert. No one laid a finger on Vince Young; they couldn't stop him. Watch for this kid Sanchez to beat out Booty next year, but the defense will mature and we'll beat Tressel in the Fiesta or whereever at the end of the season. Shit, it was a great game and I am observing mourning today so don't pile on. (We should have sold our six seats on the 50 in the 22nd row for $60,000 and gone to Vegas, but we would have bet it on USC anyway and lost.)

Posted by: shelly at January 05, 2006 08:17 AM (6mUkl)

14 4th and 2 with SC's offense and the championship on the line? I would have gone for it too.

Posted by: annika at January 05, 2006 08:20 AM (2vRJo)

15 Yep, all us SC folks felt that was the right decision. But Reggie only touched the ball THREE (3) times in the last quarter. You just don't keep your Heisman runner under wraps, so you have to give him a chance, whether they we spying on him or not. Me, I felt they were laying for LenDale on 4th and 2, and I would have called a play action pass/run by Leinart, which is always good with a swing to the fullback. But Pete Carroll is a great coach, and like he says, "I prefer College to Pro's because I get 23 first round picks instead of one." I hear the recruiting has been awesome again, and this kid Sanchez is outplaying Booty in practice. We'll be back strong again next year. Time to get ready for March Madness.

Posted by: shelly at January 05, 2006 08:50 AM (6mUkl)

16 Of course you would have. That's why you're not coaching in the big leagues. Despite all the good reasons to do it. It's a fundamentally dumb move, and indicitive of USC's loose and undisciplined style of play. USC is certainly the most talented offense in the nation, their problem is that they were playing the best defense that they had faced all year, and as JT would tell him at camp, "defense wins championships." Carrol should have used his.

Posted by: Casca at January 05, 2006 08:51 AM (y9m6I)

17 15 yards for piling on.

Posted by: shelly at January 05, 2006 09:10 AM (6mUkl)

18 It's OK Shelly, all is for the best. You'd have been insufferable in victory.

Posted by: Casca at January 05, 2006 10:31 AM (y9m6I)

19 The way White and the Trojans' O line had been making a mockery of UT's defensive line in the second half, I'd have gone for it, too.

Posted by: Matt at January 05, 2006 10:45 AM (10G2T)

20 I'd be right with you guys if it had been 4th and 2 on the 25. But, it wasn't. The ball was basically at mid-field. I was in a room full of ex-players and many of us have coached. To a man, we were all yelling "Punt!" It is easy to get caught up in one play, though. SC made a whole lot of dumb plays prior to that 4th and 2 call.

Posted by: Blu at January 05, 2006 01:28 PM (xWE3I)

21 Blu, Where'd you play, and where do/did your friends coach? Look: You can voluntarily give the ball back to UT with 2:13 on the clock, and accept the small risk of a runback. But think about this. In 11 possessions last night (I'm excluding the one that started 2 seconds before halftime), prior to the final one, UT scored 6 times. Two of those were 80 yard drives that consumed seven plays and ended in touchdowns. One of those 80-yard drives took 1:53; another took 2:02. In the second half, UT scored three touchdowns and a field goal in six possessions and should've scored another field goal. All the second-half drives but the one for the missed field goal took less than three minutes, and all their touchdown scoring drives in the second half took less than 2:40. Let me put that another way: UT scored touchdowns on 4 of 11 possessions last night, prior to the final drive. None of those touchdown drives took more than 2:39. The shortest was 51 yards. Rational conclusion if I'm Pete Carroll: If I let Vince Young touch that ball right now there's a goddamned good chance that he'll win this football game. On the other hand, I've got this kid, White. He's touched the ball nineteen times this game, so far. The result of each possession up to this point? 4, 4, 9, 5, 9, 7, 3, 2, 14, 3, 12, 8, 6, 15, 1, 9, 4, 3 and 5 yards. One of the four-yarders and one of the three-yarders are touchdowns, from the 4 and 3 yard lines, respectively. And during the third quarter I gave White the ball on fourth and 1 on the UT 12, and he gave me a touchdown. If I need two yards, only one of these runs clearly doesn't cut it, and only one is even questionable. So I'm looking at 17 out of 19 chances that White gets me two yards and we win the game. My alternative is to give Vince Young the ball with 2:13 left, and bank on him not being able to do again what he's already done twice tonight (counting only the 80-yard, sub-2:13 drives). No way, man. No way. Carroll believed in his offense more than his defense. I would have, too.

Posted by: Matt at January 05, 2006 05:13 PM (wUWh3)

22 Good points all, Matt. But, the bottom line is that Texas won that game with (I can't quite remember)about 15 seconds. The extra 20 - 30 yards made the difference. But, hey, anybody who reads your email above can obviously make a very strong case for Carroll. I just wouldn't have done it. (And if I did, I would not have run the play that everybody knew was coming and that Texas was defending against. 2 yards is a very long ways in that situation---USC should have learned from the sneak attempt earlier. I would have rolled Leinart out and ran a similar play to the one they ran successfully earlier.) Regardless, Young was fucking amazing. And Pete Carrol, to that point, had won 2 consecutive championships. I, on the other hand, have won none.

Posted by: Blu at January 05, 2006 05:28 PM (xWE3I)

23 The only truly inexcusable coaching mistake/decision was the timeout on the 2-point conversion. If Carroll didn't know that UT was going to go for two, then he didn't deserve to win that game. I'd also question the decision not to put a spy on Young on every play, but he was so fast that there probably were times they had someone on him but he was left out of frame. As for the 4th and 2 call, to quote Joe Gibbs: "Ya gotta dance with who brung ya."

Posted by: Trevor at January 05, 2006 06:14 PM (GtBBB)

24 Whoa Nellie we've got an old fashioned barn burner here tonight!

Posted by: Pursuit at January 05, 2006 07:28 PM (n/TNS)

25 Good points Blu, but two Championships AND a very close second would be more accurate. Carroll is a class act. He is not complaining about the knee down lateral by Young or the stripped catch that was ruled incomplete. He rolled the dice to win and he lost and he takes it like a man. That's why these kids play their heart out for him. My grandson will attend his camp this summer for the third time. The first day ever, he came home and complained that no one walks, ever. They run up the Coliseum steps and down to the locker room, run to meals and back to practice. But he looks forward to doing it again this coming summer; can't wait. I was privy to one of his pep talks to these youg kids, and he is truly inspirational. As long as Pete is at USC, they will be contenders, and he isn't going anywhere. Think Howard Jones, John Robinson, John McKay.

Posted by: shelly at January 05, 2006 09:37 PM (6mUkl)

26 No, no Shelly, this is where you eat crow, dynasty boy. At least Carrol had the presence of mind to be publicly gracious. I'll never forget Larry Coker's official move to "Loser" status. After losing in triple OT to the Buckeyes, he refused to talk to the press. It's been a long downhill slide ever since. Good players make good coaches. Great coaches have teams that come through in the clutch. Great coaches have disciplined players/teams who demonstrate mental toughness. What's the difference between Notre Dame under Willingham, and the domers under Weis? That's my knock on Carrol. He's got a talented but undisciplined team, that was carried through some close games by PAC-12 officials to feed the media created myth of Trojan invincibility. I'm still trying to erase the mental image of the halftime Michael Jackson tribute by the USC marching band, BLECH! Don't get me wrong, I want Pete at USC when the Buckeyes show up. Tressel will beat him nine times out of ten. There's a reason why Buckeyes spell LLLLoyd with four L's.

Posted by: Casca at January 06, 2006 06:33 AM (y9m6I)

27 OK, Annie, it's time to move on here. Let's post about something else. My week is already ruined here, and to boot I have to go watch my 11 year old super athlete grandson go play point guard for (ugh) Notre Dame in the basketball league on Sunday. I'm not sure if Ohio State will ever get to USC, but as former Chair of the Coliseum Commission, I still have a few priviliges; one will be to host Casca and watch him squirm while OUR refs show him why OSU will never beat a Pete Carroll team. -30-

Posted by: shelly at January 06, 2006 08:42 AM (6mUkl)

28 That's what I get for knowing next to nothing about football. Nothing in this comment thread even remotely resembles English to me. A bunch of random numbers... a few names thrown about as if they were figures from Bible stories... terms like "passing" and "conversion," which lead me to believe this game is some sort of Buddhist-Christian allegory... The only thing I know about football is that the players don't dribble... but they do drool. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at January 06, 2006 10:00 AM (1PcL3)

29 Kevin, Did you get your ass kicked a lot growing up? Or are you just really gay? Regardless, after you get done giving your Dungeons and Dragons buddy his daily reach around, go play with your Malibu Barbie.

Posted by: Blu at January 06, 2006 10:31 AM (xWE3I)

30 "The extra 20 - 30 yards made the difference." Umm, no. There's no way to know that. You're assuming that the rest of the game would've been the same in the event of a punt, but that's obviously not true. It's kind of a sensitive dependence on initial conditions thing.

Posted by: Matt at January 06, 2006 11:26 AM (10G2T)

31 Hey, what happened to poetry Wednesday? A football game t'other night? I've never seen such a sight! 'Cause on the east coast From pillar to post The game ends well past mid-nite.

Posted by: Victor at January 06, 2006 12:15 PM (L3qPK)

32 I love it that the homophobic rhetoric is coming from a guy named Blu. That's funny on so many levels. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at January 06, 2006 12:32 PM (1PcL3)

33 Do you know how I know your gay? You actually wrote "homophobic rhetoric."

Posted by: Blu at January 06, 2006 01:41 PM (xWE3I)

34 Matt, How can I possibly debate you when you start bustin' out the fancy diagrams?' I officially surrender. You and Pete are right!!!

Posted by: Blu at January 06, 2006 01:43 PM (xWE3I)

35 My apologies, Kevin, for the spelling error. I, of course, meant "you're." I like my insults to be grammatically correct.

Posted by: Blu at January 06, 2006 01:51 PM (xWE3I)

36 All has now been revealed. Matt is a tricky lawyer, and Kevin stays in Seoul to blend in with the meat-gazers in the public baths.

Posted by: Casca at January 06, 2006 05:56 PM (2gORp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From L.A. Times:

The mine's federal health and safety violations had nearly doubled over the last year, rising from 68 citations in 2004 to 181 in 2005. Nearly half of the 2005 totals were deemed "significant and substantial," the government's term for serious mine safety problems. The deficiencies included problems with the firm's ventilation and roof support plans.

At least 46 federal violations had been cited since October. And records from the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration indicated that at least a dozen roof collapses occurred in the last six months.

In addition, Terry Farley, a West Virginia mine safety official, confirmed that the Sago Mine was also cited by state regulators for 208 violations in 2005, up from 74 the year before.

Posted by: annika at 09:33 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

I got to see Woody Allen's Match Point today during its limited release. The movie is showing on only a couple of screens in the whole country. (I love L.A.) I saw it at the new Century City AMC 15 theater, right by where I used to work.

On a side note, the City of L.A. has finally decided to get rid of "little" Santa Monica Boulevard. For those of you unfamiliar with this idiosyncratic roadway, "little" Santa Monica ran alongside "real" Santa Monica from West L.A. to Beverly Hills. It's a very busy east-west route, and there was no logical reason for the redundancy. It looks like when they're done it will be twice as wide and much less confusing for the non-native driver. Good job.

So anyways, the one o'clock bargain matinee was still eight-fucking-fifty dollars at the Century City Theater, which makes me wonder what full price is. It was a full house. I'm pretty sure I was the only shikse in there too. And the youngest. It was a Woody Allen picture, after all.

I can't ruin the movie for you, because I want you to see it. The ending is really cool. I give it four stars: "liked it a lot." Woody can still make movies. I will say this: it's not about tennis. It's mainly a love triangle thing.

If you liked Closer, you'll like Match Point. The two movies are similar in many ways. Both have main characters who are feckless Brits, while Match Point has the added advantage of not having Natalie Portman in it.

Scarlett Johansson was awesome as expected. Her character is an unlikeable but sexy bitch. It's a nuanced performance. There are a lot of close-up shots, and you can't fake that kind of acting. The girl's got amazing talent.

The central theme of Match Point is the role of chance in life. Like how one little chance occurrence that you have no control over, and maybe don't even know about, can make a huge difference in your life. It made me think about how I might be married right now if a certain guy had been in the office instead of out when I called him three years ago. I'm glad he was out.

Another thing the movie reminded me about is how much I hate secret relationships. I've been in a few and they never ended well. Any time you have to keep a relationship secret, it's a sign that you probably shouldn't be in it. This includes work relationships, "his-mom-hates-you" relationships and of course cheating.

So there you go. I've started off the year with two pieces of good advice for you. Go see Match Point, and don't get into any secret relationships.

Posted by: annika at 11:34 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.