I guess Hamas thought Israel was joking.

Well guess what?  they weren't.  And Israel looks ready to knock Hamas's doghouse down.  Did Hamas think the idea that they're supposed to be a legitimate government was enough to deter any kind of retaliation from Israel?

Right.

This is the proper response in dealing with Hamas.  Had Israel not responded with military action, I can guarantee you that these kind of kidnappings would have happened with more frequency in the future. 

Now, with the increasing military presence in Gaza, Israel puts the ball in Hamas's court:  Either return the solider unharmed or all hell will break loose.  If Israel stands their ground, I bet Hamas or any other two-bit group will think twice before they pull this stunt again.

That's what the National Association of Basketball Coaches want.

From the AP:

Motivated in part by George Mason's remarkable Final Four run last season, coaches will urge the NCAA to expand its most lucrative championship event during the men's and women's basketball committee meetings in Orlando, Fla., this week.

"They'd love to see the tournament double to 128," said Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches. "It's based on several things. First, there are a lot of good teams worthy of making the NCAA field, and second, the size of 64 or 65 has been in place for a number of years."

Are they nuts?  I'm one of those that subscribe by the logic, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."  A number of the teams in the field of 65 can barely stay above .500.

And let's get something else straight:  George Mason's run was nothing more than a fluke, where they had some teams that they matched up well against, and were able to play good defense.  However, in reality they were never a contender for their own conference championship, much less for the national championship.  If you ran the tournament over, they'd be lucky to get out of the second round.

Adding to that fact is a very weak NBA draft that has no standouts and is probably the weakest since 1989.  Nobody's fooled into thinking that any of these guys will be future All-Stars, much less a superstar on any team.  Does anyone actually believe that Adam Morrison, a guy who broke down in the middle of the court before Gonzaga's loss in the NCAA Tournament, can stay mentally composed long enough to lead any team in the league to a winning record?  Will JJ Redick be anything more than a sixth man to shoot the occasional mid-range jumper? 

The top prospects, at least according to ESPN's Chad Ford, are Tyrus Aldridge, who led LSU to the Final Four along with a number of players who looked like they were suited for football rather than the NBA, and Andrea Bargnani, a 7'1 center from Italy who supposedly has a great jumpshot and is being compared to Dirk Nowitski.  Great; another defensive liability.<

But here's the real reason the basketball coaches want the tourney expanded:

When Haney met with NCAA officials last month, he proposed the 128-team field in part because postseason bids may help coaches keep their jobs.

So, when the fan base isn't happy, and wants to see their team succeed, what do you do?  Just lower the bar.  After all; everyone at their job does it:

- When you have a deadline, just lengthen it.

- If you're late to work, simply make your shift later.

- If you're about to break your budget, just make it larger.

- If you aren't selling enough widgets, make your quota smaller.

See how easy that is?  I wish work was like college basketball, because then life would be a whole lot easier.

It isn't surprising that the New York Times or any newspaper went to press with stories about secret anti-terror programs, or today's story about troop withdrawal.  The fact is, the Bush Administration, and to a larger extent, the entire U.S., has had to deal with a press that has done everything it possibly could to bring it down, country be damned.

There's no excuse that the New York Times can pitch to the American people that would justify the publishing of these articles.  The banking program is totally legal, has a number of safeguards on it, including a warrant requirement, and has not been accused of being intrusive or ripe for abuse.  There is no element to this story that could be seen as newsworthy to the American people.  The same goes with the troop withdrawal scoop.

However, it is newsworthy to terrorists.  Breaking these stories sound an alarm to terrorists all over the world, possibly with details surrounding the banking program.  And with the troop withdrawal story, military leaders will be back at the drawing board trying to come up with a plan that will bring our troops home without leaving the insurgency intact and ready to ambush the Iraqi government as soon as they leave.  But who cares about the importance of national security when you can get a big leak within the federal government, regardless of whether the story really has any significance whatsoever?

However callous and possibly treasonous the NYT's actions may be, this and future national security leaks could be averted if the Justice Department would cart these journalists into federal court and force them to divulge their sources, or face jailtime.  If not, the NYT and other newspapers will contnue to turn their newspapers into an government insider gossip paper anytime they can spin any activity against the Bush Administration. 

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 798 of the U.S. Code makes it illegal for anyone, "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information" and that includes, in Subsection 3, "concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government". 

The press has no right or obligation to keep the leakers protected, and the Justice Department has no excuse in not forcing them to do so.  If the Bush Administration is serious about dealing with leakers, they must deal with this situation immediately.

It's amazing what a couple of years will bring, isn't it?

Two years ago, Larry Brown was hoisting up his first NBA Championship, and the first NBA title for Detroit since 1990.  Now his coaching stock has taken a huge dip, as the New York Knicks fired him after one season.

While the Detroit debacle last year was the fault of Brown's, the New York one was entirely different.  Brown had called New York his "dream job", and went to the media several times to emphasize that he wanted to stay there despite the writing on the wall.  However, his problems with point guard Stephon Marbury as well as with general manager Isiah Thomas proved to be his downfall.

Here's my problem with the whole situation:  Brown never agreed to a buyout, and insisted that if the Knicks wanted to get rid of him, they'd have to do so while paying him the length of his contract.  The Knicks fired him anyway, but now want an arbitrator to force Brown into a settlement.

If this happens, Brown should cart the Knicks and the NBA into federal court.  I remember when so many sports fans and media were up in arms about Terell Owens wanting to renegotiate his contract after only one year with the Eagles.  Brown's situation as well as countless others show that sports franchises do this sort of thing all the time.  The Knicks want to reneg on a 5-year, $50 million dollar contract, where they only fulfilled one year of it and now don't want to pay the other $40 million despite wanting Brown out.  They should have to pay every single dime.

The Knicks should be used to wasting money by now.  They have the NBA's highest payroll at $125 million dollars, and are still paying three other coaches after firing them; Lenny Wilkens, Herb Williams, and Don Chaney.  Isiah Thomas, former Pistons great and current GM, has been there not only to oversee those firings, but also to place this ragtag roster of untalented players together, culminating into 23 wins. 

And what does Knicks owner (Cablevision executive) James Dolan do?  Makes Thomas the coach as well.  Gotta love that move.

The fans weren't yelling last year to fire Brown; they were calling for Thomas's head.  Thomas, probably inspired by Heat coach Pat Reily and Mavericks coach Avery Johnson, thinks he can do a better job than a Hall of Fame coach.  You'll hear the catcalls for Thomas to be booted out of the Knicks franchise before December.  They got rid of the wrong guy.

Thursday afternoon I was listening to 850 The Buzz and overheard Brown's biographer and the host (It wasn't Adam Gold, as he's on vacation.  It was the guy from the ACC Sports Journal) talking about Brown being a perfect fit for the Charlotte Bobcats.  I disagree.  Let Brown sit at home and count his money.  With Emeka Okafor and others returning from an injury-plagued season, Charlotte should be better than they were last year, although not quite ready to make a playoff run just yet.    Charlotte can simply let their young players get better over time and become a mainstay in the playoff race in a couple of years.

I was very critical of the unceremonious way that Stan Van Gundy was given the boot in Miami earlier this year, and I still stand by it.  But make no mistake; it was a very shrewd move that worked. 

Pat Reilly guided the Lakers to four NBA titles, so he knew what was needed in order to succeed.  Shaq knew Van Gundy could not help the Heat advance to their potential.  Therefore, they gave him the boot only weeks after the season started.  It was a cruel move, but one that worked.

I'm not going to join the chorus of sportswriters this morning ready to proclaim the Heat's NBA championship season as the start of the Wade Era, and say he's the best player since Jordan retired from the Bulls (the second time).  The Heat has a number of aging players in Shaq, Alonzo Mourning and Gary Payton that soon have to be replaced with younger talent.  However, Wade's drive and will to win helped put them over the top, and made this one of the best finals to remember. 

If there is one lesson to be learned from the NBA Finals, it's that you can have all of the talent in the world, and still not have enough to win a championship.  Wade had the drive, Reilly had the knowledge and wisdom, and Shaq, Mourning, and Payton had the experience and temperment.  Those are all things that Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban couldn't buy in his latest quest for a world championship, and those were all things that made the Heat a better team than the Mavericks. 

Those are things that you rely on when you're down by 13 points with six and a half minutes to go in the 4th quarter, already down 2-0 in a seven game series.  Not only did they win that game, but they went on to win the next three.  On the other side of the coin, talent alone can't save you from missing clutch free throws, calling errant timeouts, cursing out NBA officials and media reporters, and being arrogant enough to think the championship is in the bag because you're up 2-0 in the Finals.  But more on that later.

To the Heat, congrats.  Now you have to defend it.

- Duncan will be healthy next year

- Stoudamire returns to Phoenix's lineup next year

- Cleveland will be a better team

- Detroit returns with that same dreaded starting 5

- The Clippers will have more experience

- The Lakers will have Kobe.  Nuff said.

- Dallas will be back.

- And most important, the Heat will be a year older.

Good luck.

Right?

You know what I'm talking about.  If they tortured them, they filmed it.  If they filmed it, they're going to put it on the net.  When they put it on the net, the reactions won't be pretty.

I expect Ogrish or Rotten to have the video by the end of the week.

Rod Brind'Amour of the Carolina Hurricanes celebrates with the Stanley Cup after defeating the Edmonton Oilers in game seven of the 2006 NHL Stanley Cup Finals at the RBC Center in Raleigh, North Carolina. The Hurricanes defeated the Oilers 3-1 to win the Stanley Cup finals 4 games to 3. (AP/Yahoo)

Well, it's about time the state of North Carolina won something other than a national basketball championship.  Congratulations, Canes!!!

And to Canada....HA HA!!!!!  © Nelson Muntz

This has been a long time coming.

This goes out to Nick Berg.  This goes out to Paul Johnson.  This goes out to everyone that has found themselves on the receiving end of the viciousness of this no-good murdering bastard.

I'm glad he's dead, and I hope they bury him with his whole body dipped in lard and choking on a mouthful of chitlins.  And that's my word.

---

UPDATE:  I KNEW Malkin was up. She's got the full scoop.  There's supposed to be a press briefing by General Casey at 3pm Iraqi time.  I don't know what time that's supposed to be on the east coast.  He's supposed to explain the air raid that led to Zarqawi's death.

.......zzzzzzzzz....

*wakes up*

Oh; sorry yall.  I'll have some NBA playoff comments and stuff up sometime before the Finals start.

Oh; and GO HURRICANES!!  (No, not Miami or Katrina, fools.  Carolina.  You know, hockey...that other sport?)

I've been keeping an eye on the so-called "net neutrality" issue for a month or so now.

Congress is looking to rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which allowed deregulation of phone and media companies.  However, included in the whole debate is the idea of "net neutrality".  What is it?  It depends on who you talk to, as both sides shape the debate to their advantage.

To net neutrality supporters, it's a principle currently existing in telecommunications law that forces phone companies and internet service providers (ISPs) to provide the same access and speed to websites throughout the internet.  However, to the phone companies, like AT&T and Verizon, and ISPs, it's government regulation that will allow websites to use as much bandwidth as they want at the expense of other websites and at the cost of those companies.

At the heart of this is the development of high definition internet video, which will allow internet sites to post video files that are just as good as high definition televisions.  However, these streams use up a lot of bandwidth, and phone companies and ISPs are saying that potentially too many people could view these streams at one time, and thus "choke" the internet and run up the costs of maintaining net access.  Therefore, they want to start charging high bandwidth providers for their heavy use.

I can see the point both sides are making.  Actually, no matter what, the costs for the used bandwidth will be passed on to the consumer, one way or the other.  The question is, will it be in the form of higher phone bills and taxes, or will it be in the form of higher internet fees and services?  If I had my choice, it would be the later, considering I can better options of which internet services - in which a lot of them are pay-for-play already, like Yahoo Launchcast or ESPN's Insider - I want to use.

But there are other reasons why I question the supposed "net neutrality" movement.  Net neutrality supporters claim that the phone companies and ISPs would then discriminate and create a "tiered internet", which means the more you pay, the better access websites would receive.  However, they really don't have much proof that this would actually happen; it's more of an anticipation than anything.

A look at SaveTheInternet.org, which is sort of the center of net neutrality advocacy, could only find four incidents of anything of this kind ever happening.  They found two phone companies.  However, they were from Canada, not the U.S.  They did find an ISP that was caught blocking service from rival web-based phone companies in North Carolina; however, they didn't mention that the FCC fined them $15,000 for doing so, showing that was illegal in the first place.  They also noted that AOL was rejecting emails with any link to an advocacy website alerting AOL users of the company's proposed fee for sent emails.  However they couldn't show any evidence that the main targets of their ire - AT&T or Verizon - would act in this manner.

But what alarms me more than anything is the list of internet companies are at the forefront of this movement, particularly Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft.  Their support for net neutrality is not a big surprise.  After all, all three are user-oriented; meaning that they rely heavily on their members using a variety of services, including email, music sites, instant messengers, video uploads, blogs, etc.  These services use up a LOT of bandwidth at any given time. 

There's no question that when hi-def video comes to the internet, they're going to want a piece of it, and god forbid that they would have to pay to keep it on there, or actually charge consumers the true cost of using the service, splitting the revenue with the phone company or ISP.  Some would like to place the fee in the context of how much it would cost the companies; I would say the fee is for a service that isn't yours and that you didn't help create, but are using.  And now they want to demand the government force the companies who created it, and have to maintain upkeep for it, to give it to them for free.

Should that surprise anyone?  Only if you haven't been paying attention.

All three of these companies have figured out how the government hustle works, and have not only used their new-found skills in Washington, but also in Beijing. 

Take a look at this Vent by Michelle Malkin at the excellent conservative video blog Hot Air.  Malkin takes a look at the rendezvous last monthBill Gates had with Chi-Coms President Hu Jintao during his visit to America.  That explains why Microsoft was caught censoring the Chinese language blogs on MSN Spaces, their blog service.  Yahoo was accused of supplying information to the Chi-Coms leading to the arrest of a Chinese journalist who sent a Communist Party email to "foreign-based websites".  The journalist, 37- year old Shi Tao, was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison.  Yahoo's snitching also led to the arrest and conviction of another journalist, Li Zhi.  Google has been the most notorious, creating a Chinese-exclusive search engine to censor the internet in China, and has been censoring Google News since 2004.  However, when the U.S. Government asked Google for search information in regards to online pornography, they refused. 

The evidence on these three companies is very clear:  they're hypocrites, and can't be trusted to perserve internet freedom.  They claim to be defenders of freedom while oppressing Chinese dissidents at the same time.  And it's a given that Washington's "concern" for net neutrality won't stop there; internet taxes will come soon, and possibly followed by internet snooping and censorship, including the harrassment of political blogs.  What's to stop these companies with not only complying with the government's demands, but advocating them, especially when it works to their advantage?  After all, they've done it in China.  They know how to play the lobbying game in Washington, so I'm sure if any government regulation comes to pass, they'll have a voice in it.

The irony of net neutrality advocates accusing phone companies and ISPs ahead of time of trying to censor the internet is that they've aligned themselves with internet companies that have already done so, and there's no evidence that shows they won't do it here if it benefits them.