Your Thoughts Exactly

If you've been a long-standing reader of Your Thoughts Exactly, you know we differ on the relevance and importance of voting. I do feel its worthwhile to put my vote down, and trudged a whole 100 yards through the slush this morning to show my faith in Democracy and the Greatest Nation of All Time.

I try to have as great a grasp of the issues as possible when going into vote for the candidates, which becomes more difficult in primaries where the nuances between the candidates are slight. Many pundits have been reiterating that the policy differences between Hilary and Barack are almost inconsequential, so instead you need to look at alternative factors: The vision of the country in the next ten years. The personalities of the candidates and their abilities to inspire and lead. And the role the candidates see themselves in as President, in terms of how they will do their job once elected.

To me though, policy always comes first. I have specific ideas about policies I would like the country to enforce in order to transform our society. In 2008, they prioritize this way:

1. Foreign policy, both in trade and relations, with getting out of Iraq within the next 18 months being priority A short-term and relations with China being priority A long-term,
   
2. Reversing the moves made by the Bush Administration to curtail civil liberties while expanding the power of the executive branch, with new FISA regulations and the closing of Guantanamo Bay being priority A.
   
3. Universal Healthcare
   
4. Education.
5. Energy Reform.
   

In terms of policy, Hilary and Barack are both vast improvements over the current clown-in-chief, and the differences are slight. I prefer Barack's ideas on Iraq and engagement with Iran, but Hilary is a little more pro free-trade. I'm wary of how the Clintons would do at curtailing executive power. Hilary has been a stronger advocate for universal healthcare throughout her career. Policy wise, I lean towards Obama, but for the first time the other factors almost equal out. There is one man to thank for this: George W. Bush.

As awful as his policies are, the style of his government is that much worse. Staunch, unquestioned partisanship that punishes party members who go against the grain. Secrecy and misdirection. Willfull ignorance points of view and perspectives different from your beliefs.

We've seen a Clinton White House before, and so we have an idea of what to expect. Partisanship and secrecy were major problems of the Clinton White House, especially in the last six years of office after the Republican takeover. The Clintons play the victimization card as a political tool, and are also both skilled and comfortable slandering and defying those whom they see as providing little political gain or suction to themselves. What they failed to learn, in my opinion, is that its better to have enemies that tolerate you than those that hate you passionately.

The other major flaw of the Clinton White House is how the personal relationship of the Clintons dominated their presidency in ways that hindered Bill's ability to govern and provided ammunition for the same enemies they made already. Is this is bad as the Bush Presidencies foibles? Hell no. But it was a problem and remains a problem today.

Meanwhile, Obama's greatest strength is the vision he offers of his Presidency and the fundamentals he claims he will run his government by. The role of the Presidency, for Obama, is providing a uniting force and positive image for America, in order to allow and enable the government as a whole to legislate based on the principles this country is based on. Many a candidate has played this card in my lifetime, but none has done it as poetically or as convincingly as Barack Obama. Being able to persuade, to have a vision of the office and gain the support of the people would be crucial to actually fulfilling this vision. It's a similar one to what Bill Clinton had in 1992, that he was ultimately unable to enact. Partly because maybe Americans weren't ready, and partly because he might not have been the man to do it.

Now we are ready. And I believe Barack's the man to do start us down that path. Hopefully, he'll get a chance to.

Scroll down to my May 23^rd post.

Yea I guess I was wrong about that one. At least about the Celtics being crappily run….maybe.

Trading for Ray Allen made very little sense to me at the time, because I thought that a Pierce/Jefferson/Allen corps was good for maybe a 5 seed in the East and unlikely to get by who I thought was going to be the top teams, the Bulls (oops) and the Cavs. But then the KG trade went down and…wow.

I don’t know if this was Danny’s master plan all along, and how much of it is just good fortune, the right guys becoming available at the right time. I wonder if he was working on Garnett during the Allen negotiations. The Allen move doesn’t make sense to me without the KG move, so if not, it’s just another example of incredible Boston sports luck that will hopefully keep going for another 8 months. But as Baseball Prospectus is fond of saying, luck is the residue of design.

Having gone to watch the Celts play the Bulls on Saturday, I was once again impressed by how well the team fits together in terms of how the players strengths complement each other. As stars, the combo of Pierce, Allen, and Garnett works because of their different offensive games, KG inside, Allen as a pure shooter, and Pierce as one most versatile scorers in the league. They are a matchup nightmare, because of Garnett and Pierce’s flexibility (both can handle being on the post or wing) and the passing ability of all three. Moreover, Rondo and Perkins are now relegated to roles in which they can excel, Perk as the recipient of layups off putbacks and other’s penetration, and Rondo as a quick PG who isn’t always asked to run the offense and can now hit 18 footers. It’s freaking awesome.

Defensively, KG’s presence inside, along with a not to be overlooked Perk allows Rondo and Pierce to step up the pressure on the outside. Being able to cheat on your man by overplaying the outside game because you have one of the best interior help defenders in the league is why the Spurs have played such great D the last 10 years, and why the Celtics are now destroying in defensive metrics.

So how far can this team go? Certainly the Finals are within reach. I know people are clamoring for a Sam Cassel addition (stay the fuck away) but if I were Danny, I wouldn’t be that concerned. Maybe add another big body for the Perk role because he still gets in foul trouble, and Pollard aint gonna cut it against Dwight Howard in May.

For now though, it’s definitely easy being green.

And I am responsible.

I must be, if we truly live in a free and democratic society. For the Constitution of the United States, begins with “We the People” and acts as the ultimate source of authority in our nation, of which I am a citizen. Thus the decisions of our politicians, elected by myself and my fellow citizens, are the responsibility of the people. Ideally, the majority will be able to make rational decisions that move the country forward in a positive manner.

Yet how much time have we allowed our country to be involved in a conflict that was clearly a mistake?

Our government is set up so that change occurs slowly over time, which is a good thing. Thus we are not totally at the mercy of the whims of the populace, which in this day and age of constant stimulation from various media sources, runs completely contrary to the rest of society. The re-election of Bush in 2004 was the death sentence for thousands of young American soldiers. It was an affirmation of his policies, even if Truth is something completely different. Truth is not subject to the electoral college, and the rationale behind going into Iraq (the WMDs!) does not hold up to Truth. Moreover the entire plan does not hold up to reason, it was foolhardy and wrong-headed. Democratization of the Middle East, which was the goal of this War in order to obtain easier access to a natural resource, combined with a little payback at a dictator was the ultimate goal of this administration. But hoping we could initiate a viral spread of democracy was a fairytale that ignored a basic fact about human society: The world is not a democratic place. Even in 2007, how many countries truly operate within a free, democratic system of government? Democracies can flourish, but they are so fragile and can be upset so easily; by a leader who wants increased power, by money and its persuasion, and worst of all by complacency, by refusing to listen to opposing and differing points of view to where those that air them are shouted down or mocked.

In fact, rather than spread Democracy to another country, the lasting legacy of the Bush Administration will be a weakening of Democracy and freedom within our own country. From reduced opportunity for social mobility to curtailing civil liberties to embracing exclusive rather than inclusive values, all of the actions on a domestic front have been about enhancing their personal power while reducing that of the individual or the other branches of government one of which represents the people more directly (Congress) and one of which is supposedly bound to enforce the principles and rights on which our Consitiution was written. It's a modus operendi that contradicts their international ambitions, and calls into question the very fabric of their administration. How can two such divergent tactics be part of any coherent moral plan other than to increase their power and wealth? What is the difference between a despot and elected leaders who act only to enhance their own power? Does the fact that they were elected make it ok? Hell no.

What we need is a reasoned reevaluation of American Democracy, before we go about trying to spread it to other places. Does this mean retreat from the international scene for a lull? Yes. I am not advocating isolationism...I'm advocating prioritization. The priority is Us. We the People, and our health, education, and opportunity. Through turning inward, and refreshing freedom and democracy here, we will be able to turn outward and play an important world in helping to bring freedom and opportunity to the rest of the world.

Didn't think this was going to happen again, did you? Well, today's topic of discussion was inspired by a REAL-LIFE conversation between your two favorite former bloggers.

Recently, I've had discussions about media and its role in shaping behavior of the masses- specifically, whether mass-market culture promotes consumerism and environmentally unsustainable practices; and whether hip-hop culture promotes violence and racism. The flip side to the argument is whether these cultures are merely a byproduct of audience tastes. I've done my share of media-bashing, but I'm also pretty sure that they're only a small part of the puzzle. CNN is terrible, but if it is viewed by millions of Americans as the daily news, then who is to blame, CNN or Americans?

The short answer is both, but since that's a cop-out answer, the long answer is: what good is it to blame anybody? It's fashionable to blame hip-hop culture when gang violence rears its ugly head, and it's fashionable to blame the media when it spends 6 hours of coverage on Britney Spears or Drew Peterson. But blaming "the media" is akin to blaming nobody; it's like a blame version of Kitty Genovese- spread enough blame around and nobody is really going to take responsibility.

The link above is another symptom of this knee-jerk reaction to assign blame. It's a bill in Congress to do something about the Internet and its role in radicalizing terrorist groups. A lot of things that Congress does make no sense, and this is actually not the crux of the bill, but I wanted to point out that it is the only medium mentioned by name. As if terrorists don't use cell phones, television, paper, and even face-to-face communication. No, it's the internet that has helped spread terrorism.

The thing is, I won't even disagree with assertion. Just like I'm not going to dispute that video games (and violent movies and television) might cause violence in less stable members of the population, or that guns might cause violence. Sure, it might be true, but what are you going to do about it? Ban violent culture? Ban guns? Blame the internet? The point I'm trying to make is that these things are reality, and blaming them or trying to quell them is like the industrial revolution workers that destroyed the machinery that was "taking" their jobs. Things change in the world, and it's better to work with them than it is to fight against the inevitable. So it makes sense to blame the Internet. To the creators of this bill, cell phones, television, and talking are part of reality for them. They've accepted their place in the world, but the Internet just doesn't make sense to them.

I'm sure that's an oversimplification, but I'm painting with a broad brush. Blaming the media is fashionable, I'm sure, because it's an unprovable assertion. But what if we really could understand the causes and effects of the media? If we really knew why Britney Spears gets so much airtime, maybe we can change the rules of the game so that it isn't such a profitable combination to air her 24/7. Or maybe we would just learn to accept that Britney Spears is an absolutely compelling human interest story, that violent video games are fun, and that hip hop is violent and racist because it's just more awesome that way.

So the Celtics aren't going to get Durant or Oden. Boo-hoo. While I feel bad for Simmons because he may off himself, we've got to realize that 1) the Celtics had less than 50 percent chance of getting one of the two and 2) it's still not a bad time to be a Boston sports fan. The Pats and Red Sox are two of the better run organizations in sports. (The Pats being possibly the best.) Plus they've had some karma. We drafted the greatest QB of our generation with a sixth round pick. We signed David Ortiz off the scrap heap and he became a Boston legend. The Celtics are crappily run, and losing out on the lottery will turn people's attention to that. Perhaps, only if we get the organization moving in the right direction, from ownership on down, will we be able to have a fortunate break like getting an Oden. Would have been freaking sweet though.

Thats two straight posts with bullshit in the title, in case you were wondering.

The Suns should have won last night, except they couldn't because when they needed to score in the 4th quarter, they had to run pick and rolls with Kurt Thomas instead of Amare or Diaw. This enabled Duncan to cheat of Thomas cutting off Nash's penetration. As usual, I defer to Simmons when describing the NBA; the Spurs have the edge on the Suns right now because 1) The NBA is retarded (suspensions etc.) and 2) Duncan is amazing. The Spurs are not a great team, they execute very well and put their players in positions where they can succeed. But there entire defensive scheme (pressuring the ball up top) is based on the fact that Duncan will save their ass if they get beat on dribble penetration. Which he did last time. Every freaking time.

Which is why the loss of Amare hurt so much. Amare is a young stud who actually has the ability to take it the rim with Duncan there and finish. Which is what he did twice in the last minute of game 4, to put the Suns on top. While everyone was focusing on Nash's passes, that was the real key to victory for the Suns. It's also why they still have a chance in Game 6.

On the suspension, it's made clear that David Stern has lost his ability to be an effective executive. Giving someone authoritarian control over a business enterprise works, until the power foes to said person's head and he/she starts making bad decisions that aren't questioned by outside sources because everyone is afraid of jeapordizing their own position. The first sign of this is when Stern lengthened first round series from 5 games to 7 in the middle of the season in 03 because the Lakers were in danger of getting a 5 seed and he wanted to ensure that they made it out of the first round. Changing a rule in the middle of the season? Who does that?

Of course Stern couldn't change this rule in the middle of the season because that would make him look incompetent. Which is more important than the integrity of the game of course.

Or not. I've written on the Smoking Section about the connection between basketball and hip-hop in the public eye, as two of the main avenues whereby young black males are famous and get exposure. What I wrote there, is that while elements of hip-hop exploit the "gangster" image, the NBA patronizes their players and fans. Everything done by the NBA in the last ten years has been aimed at taming this image, even if it's impossible, so that they can sell young black males to upper middle class white people.

What the NBA needs is an executive who can balance the positives of hip-hop culture, the style and expressiveness, with the corporate interests tied into the game, and market the product to youth. Jay-Z for NBA commissioner?

I read "Feeding the Monster," by Seth Mnookin, a former New Yorker writer who followed Red Sox management around for a few years (03-05ish) and wrote a tome on them.

While Mnookin does have some interesting insights on the Red Sox, this is one of the worst pieces of non-fiction I have read about the Sox. As a non-fiction writer, the goal should be to take a broad view, understanding that in profiling something as large as an organization, there are going to be different individual views as to how things happened. In something as that garners as much media coverage, opinionizing, and rumor-mongering as the Red Sox, this is definitely going to be the case.

Unfortunately, this "insider's" perspective reads as a PR piece put out by Red Sox brass. Mnookin, rewards ownership for the amount of access given to him by taking their line in every single major conflict. His lack of reporting skill is especially evident in his inability to get the player's side of the story. Granted, getting interviews with Manny Ramirez can be a challenge, but answering such a challenge is necessary if you are going to write about the man.

Mnookin consistently labels the players as "greedy," consistently pointing out the large salaries they make while referencing their complaints in order to make them look spoiled. No mention then, of the penny-pinching done by ownership, rather according to how Mnookin portrays it, the Red Sox are struggling to make money what with revenue sharing etc. (Mnookin places the caveat that revenues from NESN arent counted, total garbage because the Sox moved all their games to NESN after buying the network, cable packages then added NESN to extended basic and charged ALL New England consumers extra, whether they are Red Sox fans or not.) Who does he think he's fooling? The Sox have by far the most expensive tickets and fuck their fans over for money in a ton of ways. Don't look to me for pity.

Worse then this portrayal however is the misrepresentation of truth. Two examples come to mind.

The first is Mnookin calling out Dan Shaugnessy for glossing over the Red Sox racist history in his book "The Curse of the Bambino." The Shank is a total putz, and the city will be a better place when he retires, but I've got to back him on this one. I've read the book and his account of the Jackie Robinson tryout (with the famous "get these niggers off the field," from the owners box) the Willie Mays tryout, the racism of Pinky Higgins, and the de facto limit on minorities through the 80s are all covered in Dan's book. He even floats a theory that there is a twin curse of Ruth and Robinson, tying Boston's futility to their racist attitudes. Mnookin's statement is slanderous.

A second comes in backing the Red Sox decisions and buying the party line as truth. Mnookin claims that, in signing David Wells and Matt Clement over Derek Lowe and Pedro Martinez, the Sox managed to get a better combination of pitchers for 8 million dollars less. Of course at the end of 2005, Pedro and Lowe had a combined VORP of 86 while Clement and Wells were at 50. Whoops.

The 2004 Red Sox were a great team both as the game of baseball and in terms of the confluence of personalities. Shame that out of such a team, no one has written a definitive profile. Skip Mnookin's for sure, Johnny Damon's bio will probably provide more level-headed insight

Ok I was just about to write a quick update on the NBA playoffs, but while I was waiting for the Bulls-Pistons games to start, I noticed something horrendous.

On one of the ubiquitous, much-maligned “Our Country” Cougar Melloncamp Chevy commercials, they pan between shots of white males working on farms. In addition to the acknowledged racism of these adds, the next of which will feature a group of guys standing in white hoods, two yokels are listening to the radio while bailing hay. Over the radio we hear, “The war in Iraq is over. The Enemy has surrendered.”

Um What the fuck are you thinking GM? I assume this is reference to the first Iraq War, a reminder of a time when you could fight wars without land power or casualties. If it’s a reference to the current Iraq conflict, it’s a giant fuck you to the troops dying by the day. Even as a reference to 91, it seems horribly irresponsible. Utilizing nostalgia of American military dominance may play up to the demographic group you are targeting, but in case you hadn’t noticed, that group is shrinking fast. The majority of Americans are going to find this jingoism disturbing and flock to the Toyota and Honda dealers to buy better cars. Tying their economic success by hoping for a resurgence in “Buy American,” while reminding consumers of exactly why they are disappointed in their country sounds like the business model for a company that wants to break their own record for net loss in a quarter. Goodbye GM.

And it has. In the last three years I have seen my Red Sox finally break through to win the title and my fantasy baseball team win the inaugural Parade of Horribles championship. Can life be any better?

Yes, if I can somehow manage a way to have both happen in one season. 2007 looks like it could be that year.

First of all, the Red Sox have started hot. I mean super hot. The pitching looks excellent; two seasoned vets in Schilling/Wake, two young studs in Dice-K and Beckett have combined to lead us to the best ERA in the majors. The bullpen has also been solid, behind Papelbon and Okajima.

The offense looks like it will be at worst good, at best near the tops in the league although still not fucking with the 03 and 04 juggernauts. The Hall of Fame 3-4 has never been underappreciated from this corner and will ensure nothing less than above average. Greatness depends on the ability of Crisp, KY, Drew, and Lugo to live up to what the smartest front office in history envisioned of them. So far this year they are 1 for 4. It’s early.

Of course one of those 4 is not J.D. Drew, who was also supposed to play a vital role on B&B Enterprises (my fantasy team.) Currently his SLG stands at .368 making him one of four players on my team to have a slugging percentage within 50 points of their on base. Not good.

I still think I can win because there will be regression in terms of home runs for my team, which will lift me in the three categories I am trailing horribly in (runs, home runs, and slugging.) The question is, will current leader (and part-time contributor to YTE, David) experience a similar correction in pitching? Who can pull off the trade that puts them over the top?

In the words of Master Splinter: We shall see, Oroko Saki.

Quick hit update before I try to keep shit moving with a longer piece on some awesomeness later in the week. There are three big sporting events going on in the world right now, the Cricket World Cup, the NCAA tourney and the Parade of Horribles Fantasy Baseball League, which everyone needs to keep updated with.

In cricket, the huge story has been the absolute destruction of everything Pakistan; not only did their team lose to Ireland meaning they don’t make it to the Super 8s, but the night after this historic loss their coach was found dead in his hotel room. People are afraid to speculate whether this was natural or shady for obvious reasons, but it’s put quite the damper on the whole tournament. Unfortunate, since the hosts (Windies,) have played well and moved on to the next round. The other Big Team that is threatened with missing the next round is India, who lost to Bangladesh, meaning their matchup with Sri Lanka on the 23^rd is huge. Follow all scores live on www.cricinfo.com

As for the tourney, I filled out three brackets, all with different outcomes, so hopefully one of them will end up right. I have Ohio State going too far, they aren’t that good and should have lost already. The toughest teams so far look like Kansas, Georgetown, and Florida. I really hope Florida doesn’t win again.

As for the PoH, we submitted our keepers this week; I chose to keep Ryan Zimmerman and Huston Street as my last two keepers, with the logic that it was more difficult to find good third basemen and closers as opposed to starting pitchers. The bottom line is I still have two of the top five players (Reyes and Howard,) and two more in the top 15 (Haf-Daddy and Beltran.) I love myself.

As for the rest of the world, we seem to be on the brink of a long hot summer, where things in Washington will continue to get nastier as Bushites are exposed for all the wrongdoing they have been involved in. What we have to realize here is that it’s not the specific machinations that are the problem; it’s the general disrespect for the other branches of government, the Constitution, and the laws on the books. No one likes legal smackdowns, but in this case, it’s deserved. And let me tell you, it’s great seeing them fall one by one.

Some quick thoughts on the sports events I saw yesterday. First I watched about 40 overs of the West Indies-Pakistan opener of the Cricket World Cup. When we arrived at the bar, the Pakis had the Windies on 7-170 and on the ropes, but some crucial slogging by the bottom order brought their total to 240 and none of the Pakistani batters could build a partnership. Of course its way too early to be making statements about the outcome of the World Cup since the first round is all about the Big Fish not being upset by the minnows, but it looks like Pakistan is going to need a super-human performance from their 3-4-5 of Khan, Yosouf and Inzamam to have a chance of getting to the semis, since the rest of their team either bowling or batting doesn’t impress. The Windies, while not looking perfect, at least found out that their bowling can win games for them against quality batsmen. That’s key, since it was their biggest question mark coming into the tourney.

Second I went to the Bulls-Celtics game, where I went in about thirty seconds from paying 20 dollars for standing room seats to getting comped to Google’s luxury suite. After recovering from the giddiness of free beer and sandwiches, I came away with the following observations about the teams in question.

The Celtics have some pieces; Pierce is still Pierce albeit maybe giving 80 percent (fine by me, this year is worthless and he is back from injury,) Al is a crucial frontline piece going forward, Delonte has some serious off the bench scoring potential…

Other than that though: Gerald Green is Kedrick Brown part 2, (someone who can jump and nothing else,) Rondo can beat anyone off the dribble but can’t play PG, Perkins got destroyed on the boards, Telfair is a joke, Scalabrine would be a great tenth man on a good team, etc. etc.

As much as the world’s most visible Celtics’ fan (Bill Simmons,) fiends over Durant in every column he writes, I am here to say that if I had the first pick, I’d draft Oden. It’s about need right now, and Tyrus Thomas and Ben Wallace DESTROYED us on the boards and inside. We don’t need another scorer, even if Durant is a once in a life time offensive player, Oden could be a once in a lifetime defensive player. In the Big Ten Championship, Wisconsin was afraid to come within ten feet of the basket.

As for the Bulls, they have as good a chance as anyone to emerge from the East. The key to their success will be Tyrus Thomas; it’s a good thing that they didn’t trade him for Gasol since he’ll be a better player in two years. Regardless with Deng, Hinrich, and Gordon in the back court and Big Ben in the middle, they have the pieces.

Of course they’ll still probably get killed in the Finals. Sorry Stu.

Remember ten years ago? You probably were at entering your peak pimple/masturbation years, thinking about trying out that “marijuana,” thing, and lying about how much sex you had. But in between managing your hormones, you were in high school. And if you were like me, you were taking European history, learning about white rich men the world over.

Anyways I want you to dig deep into your memory banks and see if you can’t recall one of history’s most dire times: The 30 Years War. Taking place between 1618 and 1648, it’s generally regarded as one of the deadliest periods in human history. (In “Germany,” 1/3 of the population died.) It eventually drew in nearly every major state, kingdom, dukedom and earldom, in the region. It grew out of tensions between the two major branches of the major regional religion, specifically the dominant branch (Catholicism) learning to deal with the increased power of the minority branch (Lutheran Protestants.) Surrounding nations were drawn into the conflict as a proxy war to fight over control of the resources of the weaker areas.

Why am I bringing this up? Because, as this blog says, you have to know your history, or you are doomed to repeat mistakes that have already been made. And I think that the lessons of the 30 Years War can teach us about what we are dealing with in the present day Middle East.

The violence taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan is due to two factors: anger about control over the Middle East by larger outside states (especially among previous groups who used to have power,) and underlying tensions between Shias and Sunnis that have been inadvertently brought to the forefront of geopolitical interactions by the U.S’ terrible foreign policy of the last six years. The U.S. and Europe’s support of Israel and more importantly, exploitation of natural resources and military presence (colonization and neo-colonization) fermented the seeds of dissent in people in the region. This led to the creation of radical groups, many of them strongly religious, who began committing acts of war against people they thought were invading their area: the U.S., Israel, and Europe.

The invasion of Afghanistan by NATO was a response to the most severe and deadly act of war by a radical group. The invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing, is starting to look like a resource grab gone horribly wrong. Yes the Bush Administration tried to tie it to the acts of war, but this connection by our leaders was either gross misjudgment or outright lying. While WMDs were not in Iraq, the oil always was, as well as the hope that Iraq would transform itself into a western-friendly proxy state that could supply energy while allowing the U.S. and others to use their territory as a military base and counter-balance to other Anti-West states.

What we know now is that idea was a pipe dream; instead the radical groups, realizing that an invaded Iraq was a prime area to conduct an insurgency, destabilized Iraq and Baghdad. Lack of security in this environment led groups of Shia’s and Sunnis to gang together for protection, increasing sectarian conflict.

On a larger scale, the destabilization of Iraq increased Iran’s regional power by getting rid of one of their largest threats. Iran is the heartland of Shia Islam, and has done its best to step into the void of leadership in the Middle East that has existed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. This has threatened traditional Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan; the Saudis don’t want Iran flexing its muscles in the oil regime, the Jordanians and Egyptians are worried about getting caught up in an Israel-Iran conflict. As Sunni-majority states, they also are troubled by the rise of Shia’s in Iraq’s new government and Iraq’s movement towards Iran; thus the rise of academics and journalists throwing around the term “Shia Crescent.”

Destabilization within the region and fear of the rival risks escalation to a scenario similar to that in Europe in the 17^th Century. A repeat of the 30 Years War would go something like this. First the U.S. shifts their focus from rebuilding Iraq and snuffing out the radical groups that actually attacked them to state on state conflicts, through threatening Iran on the basis of their nuclear program, causing problems in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon or funding terrorists with Syria. Iran fights back, the U.S. and allies invade Iran. Various radical groups and militas on various sides attack each other for various reasons, using anywhere from Saudi Arabia to the Afghanistan Pakistan border as their battlefield Syria and Israel get drawn into the conflict militarily while the Saudis and Egyptians get drawn in at the minimum as financial backers.

Ok so that would be terrible, but not too terrible right? Certainly not as bad as the 30 Years War.

The problem is that, the 30 Years War took 30 Years. And we are in year four of this conflict. Countries such as China or Russia, who do not have strong enough interests, or not enough military power to compete against the U.S., could be in a different position twenty years down the line. At the very least they could take a role similar to that in Vietnam where they helped fund and arm the U.S. main enemy.

Still, my point is that all wars don’t happen like World War II, where there was a defined threat we could see coming down the road and prepare for. Sometimes, they are more complicated and progressive; what was intended to be a quick mission or quick land grab turns into a mess involving more actors than you originally intended. It’s a different kind of war, the only similarity is the death.

I think that the Middle East is going through a similar period as Europe in the 17^th century. There is a battle of religions, of control. There are discussions about new ideas and philosophies that have entered the region and disrupted the balance of power. Long-term cultural institutions such as the patrimonial tribal system and the role of women are being challenged. There is a great economic disparity between those who have oil and those who do not.

In Europe, after years of war, the blood eventually became to great a cost. Eventually, the wars stopped and when the region finally recovered years later, the went through the time of the Enlightenment, where many of the liberal values that are the foundation of Western culture today were born. The Middle East will have its own Enlightenment, and the results will be different than that of Europe, yet no less influential. Here is hoping that it doesn’t take 30 years of bloodshed and 50 years of recovery to drive them to it. And whatever the future holds, the U.S. must do all it can to encourage a peaceful transition to the next stage.

Let’s say in a fantasy world, I was in some situation where a company gave me a check every two weeks, which was directly deposited into my bank account. Let’s also say that said company also gave me a certain amount of days per year where I was paid yet did not have to show up at work. They would call this “vacation.” If I was in this outrageous situation, I would take a week off and head to Jamaica for the world’s second greatest international sporting event, the Cricket World Cup.

This event getting no play in the United States because our team sucks, even though almost half the world’s population has a deep rooting interest in one team or another. The games won’t even be shown on any cable channel; you are going to have to spring for a dish package. Anyways I am here to give you a quick intro.

THE FORMAT: 16 teams make the World Cup, split into 4 groups of 4 in the first round. Of these teams, 6 (Kenya, Canada, Bermuda, Scotland, Ireland, and the Netherlands) are what are called “minnows.” They do not have ICC test status, (meaning they participate in the multi-year rotation of Tests,) because their teams aren’t good enough. They have no chance of winning. The top two teams from each group go into the next round, the Super 8s, a second round-robin. The top 4 teams go into the semi-finals.

All games are played under the One-Day International (ODI) format. Each team gets 50 overs to bat. (An over equals six balls bowled, from alternating ends…the same bowler cannot bowl two overs in a row.) You try and score as many runs as possible in this time; if your whole lineup gets out, then you don’t get to fulfill your 50 overs.

THE TEAMS: What will follow is a capsule preview of each of the ten test nations participating in the World Cup, for your enjoyment.

AUSTRALIA

Population: 20 million

Best Result: Champion (1987, 1999, 2003)

Top Exports: Babes, Kangaroo meat, meatheads.

Why you should root for them: Australians are some of the friendliest most relaxed people in the world. They have an absolutely beautiful country that everyone should visit. They have stupidly stood by the U.S. in the War on Terror. Plus their country will be out of water in 20 years, and they could be potentially invaded by Indonesia at any moment. They need a lot of championships to build up their confidence.

Why you should root against them: They are the greatest dynasty in sports right now. In addition to winning the last two world cups, they have been by far the best test nation in the last decade (think Roger Federer/Tiger Woods domination,) which has led to the usual amount of arrogance and entitlement among their fans. Plus their fans are prone to making racist comments towards the opposition.

Three players to watch: Ricky Ponting, the captain and the best batsman in the world. Andrew Symonds, an all-rounder (batsman, fielder, and bowler) who excels at the one day game and is trying to make it back from injury. Glenn McGrath, fast bowler who is retiring after the World Cup and one of the two most important players to Australia’s long-term success.

BANGLADESH

Population: 147 million

Best Result: First Round

Top Exports: People, Despair

Why you should root for them: The newest team to achieve test status, Bangladesh has had to fight for respect ever since, with players from countries like Australia and England sneering at them that they don’t belong. Add on top of that they are one of the poorest countries in the world, and their government was recently ousted by a military coup that promises elections “in the near future.” Oh yea their country will be under water in the next thirty years, so they may not get too many more chances to enter a team in the tourney.

Why you should root against them: I don’t know, maybe if you haven’t killed enough puppies in the last few months and are looking to take your psychotic aggression out through sports.

Three players to watch: That one guy, I think he is a bowler. And that one batsman. Ok I don’t know that much about their team.

ENGLAND

Population: 50 million

Best Result: Runner-Up (1992, 1987)

Top Exports: Chemicals, boats, hooligans

Why you should root for them: God damn did England had it made back in the 19^th Century; they had colonial dominion over every country in the World Cup! (except The Netherlands.) They invented cricket and spread it to their colonies, bringing joy to billions of people the world over. Now they have been surpassed by most of their former colonies in all the sports they exported, and have to deal with everyone rubbing it in their face every time they beat them.

Why you should root against them: Somehow I think beating a national side in cricket, rugby, or soccer doesn’t make up for two centuries of enslavement and exploitation. But that’s just me.

Three players to watch: Andrew Flintoff, their all-rounder who led them to victory in the 2005 Ashes and was anointed the next great English cricketer only to suck ever since. Kevin Pietersen, who is actually South African but stabbed them in the back. Monty Panesar, who is a Sikh bowler who rocks the turban at all times.

INDIA

Population: 1 billion

Best Result: Champion (1983)

Top Exports: India takes, it doesn’t give

Why you should root for them: With one billion people in a country that is obsessed with cricket, a victory would ensure the most happiness among the world’s people. Also India deserves some reward for putting together a Democratic country with at least thirty different languages, more ethnicities, and multiple populations of major religions. It’s a great fuck you to China’s claims that they are too big for traditional Democracy.

Why you should root against them: India uses its population and money to bully other cricket nations into accepting their terms for various events, the same way that a large corporation would use its weight to set the rules of the industry. Not very nice if you ask me.

Three players to watch: Sachin Tendulkar, one of the greatest batsman in history who is probably playing in his last world cup. Sourav Ganguly, who was kicked off the team as captain two years ago and has made a remarkable comeback into favour. Sreesanth, just because his name is Sreesanth.

NEW ZEALAND

Population: 4 million

Best Result: Semifinals (4 times, last ’99)

Top Exports: Sheep, Xtreme Sports, hobbits

Why you should root for them: 4 million people! That’s smaller than the Metro Boston area. They have no business winning any international competition of any kind. Plus they have to spend their entire lives playing little brother to a country (Australia) renowned for playing little brother to everyone else.

Why you should root against them: While New Zealanders are known to be a friendly, peace-loving people, they can’t hide the fact that they are crackers.

Three players to Watch: Shane Bond and Daniel Vettori, their two world class bowlers who could make New Zealand a dangerous team. Stephen Fleming, their long-serving captain who could be over the hill.

PAKISTAN

Population: 168 million

Best Result: Champions (1992)

Top Exports: Terrorists, Amina K. Majeed

Why you should root for them: They are bordered by one of the world’s most unstable countries (Afghanistan,) the site of the next major world conflict run by a borderline lunatic, (Iran) their traditional enemy, who has nuclear weapons and 7 times as many people (India,) and the world’s next superpower (China.) Oh and their entire Northwest quarter is controlled by violent tribes making it a haven for all sorts of illegal activity. Think the people need a distraction?

Why you should root against them: Their team is bunch of whiny prima donnas, led by their captain Inzamam Ul-Haq who also is blessed to share the Cecil Fielder body type. The national cricket board changed the rules to let back two bowlers who failed drug tests (Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammed Asif.)

Three Players to watch: Mohammed Yousuf, who converted to Islam over a year ago and was rewarded by Allah who granted him the ability to set the single season record for test runs scored in 2006. Asif, who barring injury and drug appeals, is their best bowler. Kamran Akmal, their young wicketkeeper who can win a game with his bat and lose one with his shaky field play.

SOUTH AFRICA

Population: 47 million

Best Result: Semi-finals (’99)

Top Exports: Ostrich meat, auto parts, window sills, crafts, HIV

Why you should root for them: South Africans are the nicest people in the world and have come a LONG way in a short period of time. They were banned from international competition during the apartheid years. Their people deserve a reward for the progress. Africa needs a country to step up and be their representative in the world and South Africa can be that country; an international championship would go some way in building confidence.

Why you should root against them: If you yearn for the good old days of White Man’s Burden and Manifest Destiny.

Three players To watch: Graeme Smith, who became captain at 21 and is one of the game’s rising young stars. Makhaya Ntini, the best fast bowler in the world. Shaun Pollock, one of the world’s best all-rounders playing in his final World Cup.

SRI LANKA

Population: 20 million

Best Result: Champions (’96)

Top Exports: M.I.A., textiles

Why you should root for them: Sri Lankans may have the coolest names of anyone on the planet. (Sample from the 2007 roster: Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha Joseph Chaminda Vaas.) Their country suffered through the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004. They are the classic underdog team of the sub-continent with fewer resources than their bigger neighbors, yet are arguably the most successful team of the bunch.

Why you should root against them: There was this really hot Sri Lankan girl I met in Germany and she flirted with me for like an hour and a half before telling me she had a boyfriend.

Three players to watch: Kumar Sangakarra, the world’s best wicketkeeper. Muttiah Muralitharan, the best Sri Lankan player in history, and probably the world’s most controversial, (depending on which side you take, he either is the victim of white man’s persecution or they changed the rules to make his arm action legal.) Sanath Jayasuria, the hero of Sri Lanka’s surprise 1996 run making his last stand after being booted from the team a year ago.

WEST INDIES

Population: The “Windies,” are not a country per say, rather a collection of former British colonies that love cricket and have a co-op team.

Best Result: Champions (’75 and ’79)

Top Exports: See above

Why you should root for them: They are the hosts! And, as when any developing nation hosts a worldwide event, the rich nations are complaining about how everything is not up to their normal standards. Waa Waa. Plus the Windies are the traditional glamour squad of cricket that has fallen on hard times and is looking to re-establish dominance.

Why you should root against them: Because I am in Chicago and its twenty-five degrees out.

Three players to watch: Brian Lara, Brian Lara, Brian Lara. The West Indies’ one great player that provides a link to their glory days, and one of the finest batsman ever gives it a last hurrah. Going out with a World Cup victory at home would cement him as a cricket legend; he will be the story of the tournament.

ZIMBABWE

Population: 33 million

Best Result: Quarterfinals

Top Exports: Former White Land Barons

Why you should root for them: Well you shouldn’t.

Why you root against them: Their cricket team is a political entity controlled by their dictator/president 4 life Robert Mugabe’s cronies. Many of the best Zimbabwe players have left the team and fled the country in protest of their government. Mugabe continues in power despite destroying the potential for one of Africa’s former rising stars.

Three players to watch: Zimbabwe doesn’t need us to watch them. It needs our TLC.

My prediction for the World Cup is as follows. Seven of the eight expected teams get through group play, Australia, India, Pakistan, West Indies, South Africa Sri Lanka, and New Zealand. England, whose one-day record is abysmal despite beating Australia in the CB series, loses out to minnow Kenya. At least two arrests of players are made during this time, one drug-related, one sex-related. At least one player gets kicked off of Pakistan’s team. At least one team pulls their team from the field during a match citing unsafe conditions. At least one complaint is lodged about racist Australian fans.

The Super 8s produce the following semi-finals: Sri Lanka v. Australia and West Indies v. South Africa. Sri Lanka upsets Australia who have been barely staying alive all tournament. South Africa ends Lara’s dream of a World Cup on home soil, but he gets man of the tournament as a parting gift. South Africa wins the World Cup cementing their status as the new team to beat, at least on the One-Day side with Shaun Pollock taking MoM honors.

Should be fun. If you want to follow the games or the tournament, check out www.cricinfo.com one of the best run, cleanest sports sites out there. Till then, Play Ball!

What did we honestly expect the Democrats to do when we voted them into power three months ago about the War? Many dovish peaceniks fantasized about an automatic pull-out of Iraq, although those of us not totally doped up thought. Some, like myself, wanted at least a substantial policy to come out of the change in power, either implementing the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group, or David Harris (a massive troop surge, followed by a phased withdrawal.) At least, I hoped, the Bush Administration would be forced to take a multilateral approach to their policy-making, realizing that the election was a direct rebuke to the reign of Rumsfield.

The Democrats, in the middle of a celebration of their newfound power, allowed The Presidency to draw the line in the sand on the most important issue of our time. While they were busy pushing through their 100 hours reforms, the President, through his primetime speech and the State of the Union laid out the stakes: He would not be accepting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. He would not be working with Congress on foreign policy. Instead, he would poor some salt on a shit sandwich by sending a token amount of troops into Baghdad and calling it a “surge.” Most importantly, Bush offered no new ideas about acceptable outcomes that would lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

This straight up “Fuck You” to the Democratic Party (and the people who voted them into power,) regarding Iraq was pretty bold, even for Bush. In the face of falling popularity at home and continual failure abroad, he smiled and kept moving forward with what he (or his cronies,) think is the right thing to do (or the most profitable. If this is not a case of morality gone awry for Bush then he is as bad as Stalin.)

In my view, it is the responsibility of the Congress to respond accordingly. While foreign policy is traditionally the realm of the executive branch, what we have here is an administration that’s unwilling to listen to suggestions or alternatives from qualified sources when it’s clear we are involved in an international crisis that has the potential to affect the U.S. for decades to come. The time is now for Congress to step in and utilize the power of the purse.

Instead, we get this non-binding resolution crap. This is the worst of all worlds. It doesn’t even make sense politically. If the troop surge fails, Congress gets to say I told you so about Bush’s foreign policy, but Bush’s foreign policy is already about as unpopular as it can possibly be. If the troop surge succeeds, the Dems look like idiots for coming out against it.

And enough with the “we support the troops.” bullshit which is just the Democrats running scared from Republican accusations about potentially cutting funding. The Democrats need to show some balls and argue that cutting off funding isn’t a fuck you to the troops, it’s a fuck you to the leadership that is getting our troops killed. There has to be some level of accountability in government and this is the power that our forefathers granted to the Congress. Sure this reasoning will piss some people off, but now is the time to do that, 18 months away from the next election, with popularity for the war at an all-time low.

Of course everything the Democrats do in their first two years of power will be done with consideration for its effect on the ’08 election. They will be paralyzed to make any unpopular moves that can be brought back upon them, even if they may be the correct ones. With so much at stake, it will be hard for pols to move away from the influence of their campaign managers and lobbyists, instead they will adapt the John Kerry mode. As Kerry proved, all that gets you is a narrow defeat

I really believe that a politician that can come out and lead a stand against Bush based on taking the moral high ground, ignoring politics, and telling the truth, that this War is wrong, that our troops are dying, that it’s bankrupting our country, that the people of Iraq are suffering, that all that the U.S. stands for is being degraded every day we prolong this doomed conflict, and that our executive leadership is mired in the midst of a swirling vision of false hope and the fear of being wrong that needs to be blown away by the winds of change, he or she will come across as the Champion that the American people know they need in these troubled times. I doubt in the era of non-binding resolutions, that we will see such bravery.