- to prepare for basketball, I have added HoopsJunkie.net and CollegeBasketball Blog to my sports links.  Hopefully this will help me keep up with some of what's going on in college basketball.  Also, I think I've found a top notch website called Slamdunk.com.  If you know of any others, leave me a note.

- After reffing today, I did keep an eye on Maryland's sweep of Duke (I'm surprised Deacon @ Powerline isn't whooping and hollering about this as he was when they took the Dookies out at Cameron).   I would have WATCHED it, but ESPN's hogging of the broadcast rights means that JP Sports has a smaller piece of the pie.

I remember a time when every single ACC basketball game was aired within the Raycom/Jefferson Pilot network on local television (I have Dish Network, but only one receiver and someone was watching it before me, and doesn't like sports.  Ugh.).  Now we only get Carolina/Duke and whatever games ESPN doesn't want.  It's an absolute joke, and makes me sick of the ACC leadership as well as ESPN.

Anyway, I'm glad Maryland whupped Duke's butt, albeit they had to foul out five Devils to do it.

- I also noticed the two big comebacks by Pacific over Utah St. and UNLV over San Diego St.  Pacific continued winning and remained in the Top 25 by rallying from eight down with 27 ticks left (well, AP says five, but they were fouled while shooting a three at the :27 mark and hit all three FTs) to win by a point.  UNLV rallied from 10 down with 30 seconds left, put the game into overtime, and won by two.

Wow.

Personally I have only taken fleeting glances at the coverage of this story around the blogosphere.  I didn't think it was that big of a deal since media personalities are always going to forums saying something stupid.  I suppose he thought he was safe since he was in the presence of a couple of left-wing politicians (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd).  I'm sure he didn't expect them to react the way they did.

Somehow the conservative side of the blogosphere got involved, and started bringing heat to Jordan.  I didn't feel like getting involved because (1). I wasn't interested in the story, and (2). I didn't think Jordan nor CNN would ever succumb to pressure.  So, I left it alone.

But let this be a fair warning to the media that wasn't paying attention while the CBS scandal went down; the blogosphere has stroke. That's two media companies bloggers have brought down, and it didn't take but a week or so for each to be exposed.

It's a shame that Jordan is going down while still denying it, but it is great that the blogosphere helped call him into account for his statements.

The left-wing propaganda machine Media Matters have been making a fuss over a supposed distortion of a quote by President Franklin Roosevelt in regards to Social Security privatization by Fox News anchor Brit Hume and talk show host Bill Bennett.

While Media Matters is correct in that FDR didn't advocate Social Security being completely replaced by voluntary individual contributions, as they caught Hume stating on his show "Special Report", the fact still remains that Roosevelt did advocate individual accounts that was to be added on with compulsory (in other words, the forced payroll tax) retirement funds.

As Media Matters noted at the top of their story, President Bush's plan is to partially privatize Social Security, not completely privatize it.  In fact, the federal government wouldn't be able to completely privatize the system and still give retirement benefits to citizens 55 and older; they'd have to keep a part of the payroll tax (more on that below).  Therefore, FDR's quote of individual accounts - albeit he never advocated private investments, as Bennett tried to assert - does go hand-in-hand with Bush's Social Security reform plan.

Also, Media Matters erred in this statement:

The second element, "compulsory contributory annuities," is the backbone of Social Security's current system of guaranteed retirement benefits, which are funded with payroll taxes that employees pay throughout their working years.

This isn't the current system.  As they state in their piece, the annuities "will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations."  But today's system is set up so that current workers are funding the retirement benefits for current retirees, not to fund current workers when they retire.  If that was the case, there wouldn't be a problem with the system, as workers could look forward to the money they put into into the system when they retired.  The reason why Social Security will run a deficit in the future - and thus, why reform is being talked about in the first place - is due to the fact that there are more and more workers retiring and thus using more SS funds.

In fact, it could be argued that FDR would not support this "pay-as-you-go" system, as it is in it's current state, just as easily as it is to make an argument that FDR wouldn't have supported privatization.  FDR on several occasions meant for future citizens to pay their own way into the system, not to use their money to fund current retirees.  As Media Matters stated, FDR's plan wanted retirees when Social Security started to be paid through "welfare pensions funded by the states with federal contributions", not under the same payroll taxes that workers were investing in.  The fact is, the system that FDR advocated is NOT the same system that is being implemented today.

Isn't it great when you can use someone's own arguments against them?  I thought so. :-D

---

UPDATE:  If you get a chance, check out the conversation that's going on in the comments section of the Media Matters piece.  A poster named Walter Hart is simply levelling almost every assumption Media Matters has had and is making a pretty strong argument that Media Matters has distorted FDR more than Brit Hume had done.

Looking back, I can't recall any team that has been more of an embarrassment after losing a Super Bowl than the Philadelphia Eagles.  It was as if they planned all week to make a number of excuses and complaints once they lost the game.

First, we had Terrell Owens whining because he isn't loved like Brett Farve or Curt Schilling.  Aw.  There's no doubt that people should give Terrell Owens his just due.  I mean, the guy was playing with a broken leg and ripped ligaments that hasn't fully rehabbed.  That doesn't make TO the greatest athlete in the world, as some TO-loving propagandists have yelled, but still, it was a noble effort.  I never thought he was selfish, because he was realistically the offensive weapon that could keep that team in the game.

However, if TO wants to be appreciated and applauded the same way Brett and Curt are, then guess what?  You have to act like them all the time.  Last time I checked, Brett Farve didn't run out to midfield of Dallas Stadium and pose on the star after scoring a touchdown.  Curt doesn't rip his teammates and calls them homosexuals.  Brett doesn't complain to the press about not getting the ball enough when they are 13-1.  Until you change your attitude, you're not going to get the adulation you expect.  You have to do more than one achievement on one night to turn around all the animosity that you have built up in the last eight years.

Next, we had Hank Fraley and Freddie Mitchell saying McNabb was sick during the fourth quarter.  McNabb denied he was sick, just tired, and Freddie didn't call any plays inside the huddle.  Generally I would give McNabb the benefit of the doubt, but the fact is that SOMETHING was wrong with him, and getting beasted by Richard Seymour is as good of a reason as any.

I can see why McNabb didn't want to admit he was hurt/sick.  He didn't want to be seen as making excuses.  That's fine, but there should be some explanation other than "my bad".  And I don't see how Fraley and Mitchell felt disclosing it would make the loss look any better.

Speaking of Mitchell...

Does the man know any shame at all?  Does the man know how to shut his mouth?  His interview on ESPNRadio's "AllNight" last night makes him look like a total fool.  Blaming TO because you didn't get any looks from McNabb?  Dude, you're the FIFTH OPTION for that team.  McNabb looks to TO, Pink, West, and Smith before he even thinks about looking for you.  McNabb didn't go to you until the fourth quarter, a wide open pass for 11 yards.  Where was the belt then, Freddie?

And why would Freddie even mention the Patriots after that debacle?  Regardless of whether you got under their skin, the fact is that they used his words to motivate them to a Lombardi Trophy.  Meanwhile, Harrison and the boys have forgotten about him and are on to better things while he's still harping on them.

When Freddie is cut from the Eagles - and I believe he will as he's now embarrassed McNabb and TO in a matter of days, and shows no signs of shutting his mouth - and he's on that chopping block that is free agency, maybe then he'll realize how he should have kept his mouth shut.  I'm not holding my breath, tho.

The Eagles looked bad enough in losing the game, but days afterwards they've made themselves look a lot worse.  Andy Reid is a good coach, but if he can't keep egos in check during a run to the Super Bowl, what's going to happen when they lose games and come short in the future?  For the franchise's sake, they better hope they keep winning, or the Eagles will be in the same shape as the Sixers.

I'm trying out some new layouts, in order to see if I can get a larger and brighter font.  So if things look a bit wacky, you know why.

This is a rarity.  Tim Russert is used to making everyone else look bad.  But on Sunday's Meet the Press when he interviewed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he was one that sat in the hotseat.

It all started when Russert asked him about the now-infamous Q&A session in Iraq.  Just like other media outlets, as I discussed here, Rumsfeld response to a question about armor for tanks was taken out of context by Russert.

After Russert showed "selected" clips of Rumsfeld's response, here's what transpired:

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  Yeah, but wait a minute.  Let me get into this a little bit.

MR. RUSSERT:  Sure.

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  That was unfair and it was selectively taking out two sentences from a long exchange--there it is--that took place.  And when you suggested that that's how I answered that question, that is factually wrong.

MR. RUSSERT:  No, we...

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  That is not how I answered that question.

MR. RUSSERT:  But, Mr. Secretary, it clearly represents the exchange and...

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  It does not.

MR. RUSSERT:  All right.  What is missing?

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  You want to hear the exchange?  There is it.  It's right here.  I'll read it to you.

MR. RUSSERT:  I just...

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  If you're going to quote pieces of it, I'll give you the exchange.

Now, that answer is totally different from picking out two lines.  And I think it's an unfair representation and it's exactly what some of the newspapers around the country did.  Now, let's go back to Susan Collins' comment, Senator Collins...

The Pentagon chief predicted that by mid-February "there will not be a vehicle moving around in Iraq outside of a protected compound with American soldiers in it that does not have an appropriate level of armor."

But Russert replied: "Which is a pretty dramatic change, because Newsweek had said that, of the 19,000 Humvees in the Iraqi theater, according to the Army's latest numbers, only a quarter were fully armored. So the fact is that Specialist Wilson's question in front of his troops in which he was cheered was helpful in getting people to truly focus and respond to this. Fair?"

To which Rumsfeld responded: "Well, you saw my answer."

UPDATE:  Via Booker, The Toronto Sun cites sources that say she has audio tapes of telephone conversations between the accuser and Cosby.  According to their sources, she has already given the tapes to Montgomery County's DA.  That doesn't sound too good.

Was there any question about who would come home with the Lombardi Trophy?  I didn't question it, and anyone would knew a lick about the NFL wouldn't have either.

That didn't mean the Patriots made it easy to win, or easy to watch.  This was probably the worst coaching performance by the three-headed monster: Belichick, Weis, and Crennel.  Weis made the playcalling very ultraconservative, and didn't take any chances downfield.  After they went up by ten, it seemed as if the offense felt the game was over and that they didn't need to play anymore. 

Crennel really looked bad, IMO, especially when he called for man-to-man coverage and had no one covering deep on the huge touchdown pass McNabb connected to Greg Lewis with less than two minutes left in the game.   It didn't help that he had the corners play soft on the Eagles receivers in the 3rd quarter scoring drive that tied the game at 14.  Believe me; if the Pats would have somehow lost that game, even on a fluke, everyone would have been crapping on Crennel today.

Lucky for them, McNabb was terrible.  If you would have told me that NE would only win by three points, yet McNabb was picked three times I would have thought you were crazy.  The truth is, McNabb could have had a couple more picked off as well, as it seemed as if the accurate passes were the ones thrown to NE's secondary.  I think it's a testament to the improvement of the Eagles receiver corp that they were able to make big catches that were often overthrown or thrown behind them.  And the blame for the horrible clock management - not only in the fourth quarter but before halftime as well - goes to him as well as Andy Reid.

There were some bright spots.  Deion Branch, who was the Super Bowl MVP, and Terrell Owens stole the show.  Branch bruised the Eagles secondary for a SB record-tying 11 catches for 133 yards.  If it wasn't for him, the Pats would have been in serious trouble in this game.  And Terrell Owens definitely showed he is the best WR in the league, catching nine passes for 122 yards on a bad leg that for all intents and purposes isn't fully rehabilitated.  (It should be noted that Branch missed most of the season, and was almost placed on IR.  I'm sure the Pats are glad they didn't.)

Philly's defense kept them in the game to the end, making great stops and never allowing Corey Dillon and Kevin Faulk to stay consistent with the running game.  That surprised me, because Dillon generally does his damage in the fourth quarter by breaking tackles, consistently getting those six yard runs, and killing the clock.  The fact is that the defense gave the Eagles more than enough chances to win this game, but the offense - with the exception of TO - was abysmal.

Now that I've talked about the game, let's now talk about Freddie Mitchell.

I said it like that because Freddie Mitchell wasn't in the game.  One catch for 11 yards.  That's absolutely sad.  I'm listening to Jim Rome and the Clones rip into him throughout the show today, but let's be real...you knew he wouldn't produce anything.  He never has!  And with TO in the game you knew McNabb isn't looking at him as an option unless everyone else is covered and he is WIDE open.

And another thing:  Mitchell called out Pats cornerback Rodney Harrison, yet Harrison had more catches than Mitchell did.  Harrison had two picks and a sack last night, and would have been MVP if it wasn't for Branch's performance.  This will go down as one of the biggest flops in sports history, and Mitchell deserves every bit of the criticism he gets from here on out.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Eagles cut him in the offseason.

Mitchell wasn't the only one; Todd Pinkston was a joke too.  Pink actually had a great first half, catching four passes for 80 yards including two tough catches to help the Eagles get on the scoreboard in the second quarter.  But he was "injured" in the second half, and never finished the game. 

The injury?  Cramps.  That's right; you're playing in the SUPER BOWL and during the first half was putting up great numbers and helping your team move the ball down the field, yet you are going to leave the game because you have cramps.  I tell ya; the Super Bowl is one helluva time to go on your period.  People were trashing Chuck Badnarik last week for claiming today's football players were soft and hoping the Eagles lose so the 1960 team would be the only Eagles team to win the championship, but Pink helped cement that assertion.

All in all, the Patriots deserve praise for what they've done.  Regardless if Belichick can get it done next year without his coaching staff (Weis has been hired to be the head coach at Notre Dame, Cremmel will be the head coach at Cleveland), no one can deny their place in NFL history.  Rest assured, Brady and Belichick have their spots prepared at the Hall when they hang up the cleats (or the clipboard if you're Belichick).

It's a shame that this year isn't anything like last year.

Last year the Super Bowl wasn't drowned out by egos, and people actually focused on the game.  Now we hear even the most stupid questions being asked about guys who will probably make little to no impact in the game itself.  Hence, that's what I'm here for.  Let's talk about the game.

The focal point of this game is the Eagles offense.  They have a lot of pressure on them, regardless of whether TO plays in this game or not.  It's not because I don't think they can put points on the board, because they will.  But will they put enough points on the board to keep this game within single digits?  That's the question.

My childhood days were spent in Hyde County, North Carolina, which is just off the famed Outer Banks.  Generations of my family have lived there, through both slavery and freedom.

One of the historical points in during those times was back in 1967 in Middletown, in which I went into a little bit here.  At the time, the schools were being forced to integrate (but black people in the county fought it.  If you wanna know more about it, read this book) and racial tensions were at an all-time high.

The Klan had a building in Middletown where they had their rallies.  There had been several incidents between the black teenagers - one of them being my dad - who had brushes with the Klan, and people could see it was going to come to a boiling point.  My dad and his friends/family were hiding their guns at my uncle's house, and the Klan were trying to intimidate black people in the area by spreading leaflets and spraypainting houses.

Well, one night my cousin and some friends of his were out riding around in Middletown, and the road just happened to go right by the Klan's building, and one of dem dere good ole boys decided to get that ole shotgun out and shoot into the back window of the car.

No one was hurt.  But it didn't take but a hour or so to round up a posse to take a trip on the Klan house.

By the time the county police got there, I think two were shot, one on each side.  No one was killed, though, and most importantly, the Klan was never seen in that county again.  My father wasn't there, because he had went with one of my uncles to Manteo that afternoon.  For some reason, he never mentioned all of that stuff to me.  I had found out about the book, and mentioned some of the stuff I had read.  I guess he never thought it was that important. 

However, I did.  It was a perfect example of how citizens in a community took things into their own hands to run the cess pool of society out of their county.  

So imagine how I felt when I read this (from Free Iraqi):

Citizens of Al Mudiryiah were subjected to an attack by several militants today who were trying to punish the residents of this small town for voting in the election last Sunday.
The citizens responded and managed to stop the attack, kill 5 of the attackers, wounded 8 and burned their cars.
3 citizens were injured during the fire exchange. The Shiekh of the tribe to whom the 3 wounded citizens belong demanded more efforts from the government to stop who he described as "Salafis".

I bet those maggots will think twice before they go back into that town again.  And that's what all Iraqis have to do in order to get rid of terrorism in their country; simply fight back.  They don't all have to be combative, but they should cooperate and target areas where these people are giving these terrorists aid and sanctuary, whether it's businesses or residences.  Terrorists can't hide if there aren't any hiding places.

Here's hoping there are more stories like these popping up.  Iraqis are learning what this so-called "insurgency" is about; they aren't rebels, they're invaders.  They are trying to take over the country, and a good number of them aren't even from Iraq to begin with.  They want to take over the country and place the Iraqis in even harsher conditions than Saddam ruled them under.  Thus, the sooner the Iraqis start rooting these worms out from under the rocks they're under, the better.