Wow. Pure genius.

Actually I just heard via radio that the results are in dispute since Oakland wants 20 points for each Black player on the roster and not just the starting QB.

This may not work either since there may be some dispute as to the ethnicity of several Titan players.

This could take a few years to work out BUT fair is fair!

In a related article, Johnnie Cochran has won approval for race-based "diversity" in the NFL Draft.

Under the new plan, 63% of running backs would be required to be Caucasian (non-Hispanic)in the first four rounds.

Running Back Chip Jones, a junior at Northwest Kentucky State, is planning a new future based on the decision. "I run a 5.8 40-yard dash and may have a little extra fat on my waist - but fair is fair."

In a victory for the NFC, the league also denied a petition to require five defensive starters to be women.

Ooh, Scott, that's brusque. I'm laughing and cringing at the same time--putting absurdity on display by being absurd works almost every time out.

In the interest of diversity, there should be some cripples on the team. I'm gonna file a lawsuit.

Hey Denny. It's been done.

Haven't you heard that football is actually an evil metaphor for war? The violence, the competition...gaining ground, acquiring territory, etc? Why do you think these clowns chose to march in protests on Sunday instead of staying home and watching the NFL playoffs?

By the way...there's more truth to this than you think. Check http://www.inewgames.com/ How many in the anti-war left do you think are football fans?

This life long Raiders fan thinks you underestimate the Left: we're not all peace at any cost. Some of us just think a party run by former cheerleaders isn't the party to lead us into war. Especially not when the other side is playing with weapons sold to them by the current cheerleader-in-chief's daddy.

Jerry Rice and the Raiders by three touchdowns, and France with a veto to cancel the other big game.

Mark,

No underestimation here. Only observation. Of course the party of ponzi-scheme nay sayers would be better. We could put Levin and Rangel in charge and sleep sound at night.

BTW - They seemed to have done well in the ìquagmireî of Afghanistan with less preparation. You know, the place where there would be 2 million dead in the long Afghan winter. And the last time we were in the Iraqi neighborhood it seemed to work to our advantage. The only flaw was that our tanks had a reverse gear.

But of course I could be wrong and the Iraqis love Saddam and will fight to the last drop of blood in his defense.

However, I admit you may be correct about the Super Bowl, unfortunately.

Cheers

Actually, the results have again been reversed as the NFL added an additional 20 points each in favor of the Raiders and the Bucs in recognition of past "contributions" to the league by the owners of those teams. Justice wins the day!

Glad we agree on the Raiders, and actually, we do agree on Afghanistan, I think. I just don't understand why, since we "won" that war, Taliban rules are still in place in Afghanistan. Seems like we pounded the snot out of them and then left without worrying about that pesky nation building stuff.

Iraq is no Afghanistan. We can win the war hands down, but without some damn serious nation building and a long-term commitment to a U.S. troop presence, all our war will do is set off a massive civil war between the three very different groups that live in Iraq. But you don't hear anything about that from our cheerleader-in-chief.

Lay out a complete battle plan and you'll find plenty of lefties willing to talk. Hussein is no one's hero, but if he was good enough for Poppy Bush in the '80s, why the rush to war now?

Mark...only the French actually believe that a French veto will actually cancel that other big game.

Would Condi Rice be a cheerleader for the Titans or the Eagles? We would (of course) need Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as honorary captains, with uniforms paid for by shakedowns of corporations.

Football isn't an evil metaphor for war. Each game is a perfectly straightforward actual mini-war, with the generals and strategy contributing significantly to the outcome in addition to the conduct of the soldiers. Really, you gotta love it. Keeps "real" interstate violence low - for example keeping Colorado from actually invading Kansas like they did in that one episode of South Park.

Mark,

Do you mean Taliban rules (laws) or rulers?

Either way your source is suspect. The Taliban rules are not the law of the land. To start with girls are back in school, the dress code death sentence is gone and women doctors can actually practice again. Now let us not pretend that there are still not rampant problems with residual Taliban and tribal conflict BUT from all I have read and seen reported the situation is significantly better.
Of course Opium production is up which could lead to some heavy turf battles and present a destabilizing influence i.e. Columbia.

Cheers

Mark writes, "but if [Hussein] was good enough for Poppy Bush in the '80s, why the rush to war now?"

Point #1: RUSH to war? Seventeen months (and still counting) is RUSHING?

Point #2: (i) Bush #41 conformed to the dictates of the UN: our authority was to get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to conquer Iraq; (ii) Bush #41 believed (reasonably, but incorrectly), that a military coup would topple Saddam from within, saving thousands of American soldiers' lives; and (iii) Bush #41 recognized (probably correctly) that if the U.S. finished of Saddam and his military, Iran could simply swoop down and incorporate Iraq into its Islamic fundamentalist state--a very bad outcome for the Middle East and for us.

Bush #41's actions may, in the long run, have been incorrect, but were not unreasonable.

If football is war, the Eagles are France.

imagine if all sporting events worked like the University of Michigan admissions program - if you're black you start the game with 20 points. Just for being black.

kinda puts their "program" into perspective.

Rick:

Most girls in Afghanistan still cannot attend school because there are not enough educated female teachers, and mixed sex classrooms are not allowed. Some things have improved, but women are still harassed and western style clothing is not widely seen. And you're right, Afghani heroin will be hitting American streets any day now.

RJ: You take as a given that Iraq instigated 9-11. Excuse my french, but that's [equine waste] [Ed. Note: Please don't use French in this comment section.]. The Saudis comprised the vast majority of the highjackers and to date no ties have been shown between the Iraqis and 9-11. In fact, Iraq and Afghanistan don't get along at all. If you want to launch a first strike against Saudi Arabia, I'll be first to sign up (weird liberal thing -- we like to punish the guilty, not just the country with the most oil for the taking).

Re the Gulf War stuff, I referenced the '80s when Reagan-Bush and the CIA helped install Saddam Hussein. If you want to talk Gulf War, start with Ambassador Gillaspie inviting Saddam to take Kuwait. Bush I, like Bush II the National Guard deserter, wanted a war to boost his popularity.

Iraq is a rotten country, but as has been pointed out many times, everyone standing in line to run the country next is even worse than Saddam. When Bush II starts talking about what happens AFTER the invasion, I'll start taking him a lot more seriously. Until then, I'm more concerned about the USAF shoving dexedrine down our pilots' throats before sending them off to bomb the wrong country.

I'm confused, have we already used all the oil we "took" in '91?

And now that I'm at it, why should pilots on dexedrine be any more objectional than US senators driving under the influence. Roe vs. Wade is not a debate on how to leave an automobile accident. The fact remains that any stimulants given to pilots of US forces is extremely rare in use and only necessitated by nations such as France causing flight paths that resemble the cheapest way to fly from Atlanta to Seattle.

Mark,

After reading your posts, why do I not believe this quote?

"When Bush II starts talking about what happens AFTER the invasion, I'll start taking him a lot more seriously."

First Bush had to go to the UN and reintroduce the inspectors (which he did). Then he had to get the unanimous Security Council vote (which he did). Now he has to have a lefty-approved plan for post war Iraq? If he did produce a plan for a post war Iraq I am quite confident you would move the goal posts again. Notice how I stay with the football theme of the original post!

You do not like him and since I assume you probably did not get bent out of shape when Clinton ineffectively bombed Iraq in í98 I really have to believe that your position is based on nothing more than personal animosity. That is not to say that the concern is not valid. I however, do not believe those who raise it are seriously concerned about post war Iraq. They (you?) simply use it as another in a continuing string of delaying tactics.

BTW - There have been meetings in London with Iraqi expatriates. Since Saddam will not allow any senior officials to leave the country and US officials cannot solicit opinions or ascertain who may be in a position to work in a post war Government it would be a little premature to make a plan public since it would most likely need to be changed as soon as it was published.

Good luck this Sunday. This will be it for me on this subject.

Cheers

Man-of-the-people Mark says: "Iraq is a rotten country, but as has been pointed out many times, everyone standing in line to run the country next is even worse than Saddam."

Are Iraqis worse even than all the Republican-voting scum in the U.S., Mark? Are they worse than evil American corporations? Bush of course is much worse than Saddam, right? I find your bitter carping and desperate fault-finding really quite gratifying. Your bitterest domestic enemies must be doing something right to piss you off so badly. Hope they keep it up.

This was about football, wasn't it?

Mark has, in his long response to Rick and me, given us so much to Fisk him with that I could do a 20-page response. But I won't.

Let's suffice with this. Mark would have us believe that unless Iraq is connected with 9/11, we should not attack. This clearly demonstrates that Mark has all the geopolitical wisdom of, say, Sheryl Crow. Mark, is it possible for us to: (i) have an enemy; (ii) that seeks to destroy us; but (iii) is not connected with 9/11? Following Mark's reasoning, we never should have gone to war against Japan and Germany; those two countries were clearly unconnected with 9/11.

Another point: yes, to a certain extent, Reagan and Bush supported Saddam against Iran. Reagan and Bush also supported Iran against Saddam. I.e., Saddam and Iran were at war. We supported both sides. Was that wise? Was it wise to have (and keep) two of our enemies at one anothers' throats? To have a philosophy of, "Help 'em kill one another and let God sort 'em out?" Sure! If we could have turned Japan and Germany against one another in WWII, should we have enthusiastically helped both of them as they destroyed one another? Sure!

i think the Super Bowl was fixed!

Lori, you were supposed to WAIT till Monday to call the fix...

R.J., aiding BOTH Iran and Iraq is just not very fair or very nice. It makes me ashamed to be an American.

The NFL also added 20 points to the 1988 Super Bowl, giving the Redskins a 62-10 victory over the Broncos.

I don't agree with affirmative action, because it separates and puts one race ahead of another, even if it isn't caucasians. This is just what civil rights leaders were trying to abolish in the 1960s.

However, if colleges are to abolish affirmative action, they must also abolish the 'legacy' advantage, since more parents of white applicants attended college. This is another form of 'affirmative action'.

Let's treat all races equally, not showing favoritism to any.

JDK, the argument against race-based preferential admissions at UM is that it violates the Constitution because it specifically and unambiguously factors race into the selection process.

Preferential admissions for the children of alumni does not factor race into the selection process. To the extent that there is any racial effect, it is simply an unintended by-product of the process. I.e., the process is race-neutral, even if it does result in more whites being admitted to the college.

The analogy you're looking for is granting preferences to the children of WHITE alums only. Unconstitutional? Probably--as unconstitutional as the UM policy.

Still no word from the NBA.

Not funny or appropriate. Though I think that racism can happen in both directions. Which I think is evident in things like the United Negro College fund, last time I checked Caucasions are not allowed to have such a fund, are inherantly racist now and outdated. Grouping Gen. Powell into this is plain wrong. Sorry, thats the way I see it