The Best Defense is a Good Offense

Final: UCLA 21 Cal 45

plays big brother today, Cal Berkeley. Cboy said that my boys in powder blue are going get whooped. While I hate to admit it, he may be right. The Bruins have been winning, but they've also played against inferior teams. A 4-1 record is pretty good, given the low expectations of the all the pundits. But still, none of the teams are close to Cal's caliber. Man coach Tedford at Cal must be some freakin' genius. He has turned around that program in three years. Cal was pretty much the doormat of the Pac 10 for years, but now the Golden Bears are roaring prety furiously...

Cal has perhaps the best offense in the Pac 10 if not the best in the country--even thought they lost to SC last week. Cal leads the Pac-10 in rushing at 247.8 yards per game and is second in the nation in total offense at 510.3 yards per. Great. And the Bruin defense? What defense? UCLA is 115th of 117 Division I-A teams against the run, allowing 250 yards a game. The Bruins also rank last in the conference and 91st in the nation in total defense, giving up 415.4 yards a game. This is not a good match up.

But that doesn't mean that I've thrown in the towel before the first punch is thrown. I have hope, slim as it may be. What else can a fan do? And it has nothing to do with the New York Times football ranking which has UCLA ranked higher than Cal.

Say what?

Yes that's right. The NYT ranks UCLA at 18 and Cal at 25. I always thought the Times was one of the most respected papers in the nation. I may have to readjust my opinion. They either have a UCLA partisan manipulating the computer ranking formula, or they have a monkey doing it.

The reason for my optimism is the Bruins improved offense. Last year, the Bruins sucked major in offense, it was--if you will pardon the pun, offensive. Last year, in 13 games, they ran for 1,195 yards for a 92 yards per game average with 11 touchdowns, Thins year in only 5 games, my boys in blue have rushed for more yards (1,207) for an average 2 and a half times greater (241.4) and the same number of touchdowns (11). And Olson, the QB, is no superstar but he is adequate and is beginning to master the system they have implemented--the West Coast Offense.

So, as I see it, the best way to approach this game is to keep Cal's offense off the flield by keeping our offense on. That would be the best defense for a team that has none.

Go Bruins!

Final Comments...

O

n the debates. I didn't major in polisci, and I'm no political analyst, in case, er, you couldn't tell. Hehehehhe... But I have my opinions and this political race between Bush and Kerry has stirred my civic juices. Hence, my comments. Although born and raised a Republican, I consider myself truly independent now, independent of the jargon and rhetoric of either parties. And in spite of what you may think, I am one of those honest to goodness undecided voters.

Well, until Wednesday night...

At the third debate, President Bush avoided a number of questions.

SCHIEFFER: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored.

But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage.

The President has proposed a Federal ban on gay marriages. While his "basic views on the sanctity of marriage" is fine, it is exactly that: his views. How does a Federal ban treat gays--as he says--"with tolerance and respect and dignity"? He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. This is really apparent because he couldn't speak from the middle of his mouth and answer the question directly: Is homosexuality a choice? He couldn't and wouldn't answer this question. If he wanted to reflect most conservative thinking and appeal to his base, he would have had to say, "yeah, it's a choice." But he didn't because that would alienate a large portion of middle to left voters. And if he said it wasn't a choice, he would alienate his base. Ulitmately, this President, so firm in his thinking, so resolute, so strong--in his head--couldn't resolve this issue.

When it came to abortion, he wouldn't even accept the question.

SCHIEFFER: He (John Kerry) said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?

BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test.

He totally ignored the question and responded to a question he made up himself. In fact, the President was obviously so unprepared for this question that the above quote was his entire response when he had three minutes to talk. Since when did the President--or any politician--not take up the entire time allotted to speak? Some would call this deflection of the question deft. Others would call it lacking resolve. Even others might view it as simply gutless...

But when he did speak, President Bush continued with many mistatements. As one talking head put it, he looked like a college student who crammed for an exam the night before and was just trying to get all the information he had in his head on paper in any shape or fashion. With the flu vaccination situation, he obviously jumbled the information.

SCHIEFFER: Suddenly we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?

BUSH: Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.

We're working with Canada to hopefully -- that they'll produce a -- help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season.

First, the company is a US company with a factory in England. Secondly, Bush did not take any action to disallow the contaminated vaccine to get to the US. English inspectors deemed the vaccination contaminated and they disallowed its distribution anywhere. The President, our President, makes himself out--wittingly or not--as a major cog in the machine of disinformation. Further, I thought he slammed Kerry in the second debate for dissing Tony Blair for not recognizing England's contribution to the efforts in Iraq. Isn't blaming England for contaminated vaccine when it's really a US company and trying to take the credit away from English inspectors an insult to England, too? And what's with Canada? Didn't he say in the last debate that we couldn't trust Canada? That we had to check every pharmeceutical product from Canada to protect US citizens, even though it denied us access to inexpensive drugs? And now he wants the their drugs? He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

But mistatements are one thing. Contradictions--or lies--are worse.

KERRY: When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped. Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?"

He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned." We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Of course, anyone who has been watching the news knows now that the President indeed made the statement previously.

BUSH (3/13/2002): Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I've mentioned in my speeches, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death, and he himself tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you... I truly am not that concerned about him. (click here for the transcripts of the official White House Press release.)

Was he telling a lie? No, he isn't as sharp as Cheney. Did he forget it? Probably. But this flip flopping is a reflection of an accusation made by Kerry agains Bush: That the war in Iraq was a diversion. He wanted to divert out attention away from Al Qaeda and to Iraq, the war he wanted to engage. Why else would he make light of the whereabouts of bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11. He wanted us to focus on Saddam and Iraq.

When he spoke of joblessness, he really showed how out of touch he is.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college. We've expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

Does he really believe that a 40 something unemployed man can go to a community college, get a years worth of training and then find a job? His "trade adjustment assistance" may help with his tuition, but it won't go far if he has a family and a mortgage. And who will hire an over 40 man when a twenty-something likely has better and more flexible skills and will cost less? I personally felt insulted when I heard this. He has absolutely no concept of what it is like for the average man.

Of course, John Kerry has not lived in the shadow of the middle-class either. He has led a privileged life, as well. But there are two types of rich. Both will take advantage of their largesse, but in different ways. Some will use their influence and take advantage of it, like going to the National Guard and staying out of Vietnam. Others will use their influence and speak out against what they believe are government's policies gone awry, like speaking out against the Vietnam War.

I am now strongly leaning toward Kerry. This is not because of what Bush-Cheney has said. I think I have plenty of reasons not to vote for Bush-Cheney. They obfuscate, they misrepresent, and they have saddled us with the largest Federal debt ever. But not voting for Bush-Cheney does not, to me, mean that I should vote for Kerry. I lean toward Kerry now because of what he said in the third debate.

SCHIEFFER: Do you see a need for affirmative action programs, or have we moved far enough along that we no longer need to use race and gender as a factor in school admissions and federal and state contracts and so on?

KERRY: No, Bob, regrettably, we have not moved far enough along. And I regret to say that this administration has even blocked steps that could help us move further along....

The fact is that in too many parts of our country, we still have discrimination. And affirmative action is not just something that applies to people of color. Some people have a mistaken view of it in America. It also is with respect to women, it's with respect to other efforts to try to reach out and be inclusive in our country. I think that we have a long way to go, regrettably.

If you look at what's happened -- we've made progress, I want to say that at the same time. During the Clinton years, as you may recall, there was a fight over affirmative action. And there were many people, like myself, who opposed quotas, who felt there were places where it was overreaching. So we had a policy called "Mend it, don't end it." We fixed it. And we fixed it for a reason: because there are too many people still in this country who feel the stark resistance of racism, and so we have a distance to travel. As president, I will make certain we travel it.

Well, as a person who was directly affected by affirmative action, I would like to say that I am somewhat relieved that there is a white male in the the US who will actually recognize that racism still exists. While relations have improved, conditions have improved, there are still those who practice racism--often covert, barely recognizable racism--but racism nonetheless, and most of my Asian brothers and sisters know what I am talking about, as we are subjected to it more frequently than even righteous, understanding non-minorities can imagine.

In any event, this is not the only reason why I lean towards Kerry, but it was a moment on Wednesday's debate that grabbed me...

No energy...

H

ello. The cold's gotten a bit better. My coughing has diminished and my body aches are virtually gone. But I'm still not 100%. I am such a loyal teacher that I didn't take off of work last week. Instead, I fed myself handfuls of Tylenol and gutted it out. I had to cut one class short when I couldn't stop coughing, but other than that, I was able to last through my classes. Oops, actually I canceled one class, the senior proseminar. First time in my career I've canceled a class due to illness...

Anyway, getting through classes under the weather is exhausting. I'd get home and just go to sleep. I barely had enough energy to grade papers and prepare for class... oh yeah and some Xanga, no TV... well, the debates and maybe the UCLA game... but nothing else, I swear! The best thing about this cold has been that I slept 6-8 hours a night! That's dreamland for me. And after a relaxing weekend, I feel stronger and I'm no longer taking Tylenol or other pain killers to get me through the day. And my cough has more or less subsided.

But since I did little else but teach last week, I'm now confronted with a mountain of undone work. Ugh. And I'm still trying to catch up. I will return to Xanga soon and hope to visit every single one of you when I can. Promise.

Final: Arizona 17 UCLA 37

plays the University of Arizona today. They finally got rid of their pretty boy coach, John Makovic, and replaced him with Mike Stoops, the younger brother of the Oklahoma coach, Bob Stoops. Makovic was relatively successful at Texas, but when he took his act on the road, it did not play very well in Tuscon. In fact, it was a disaster, and the Arizona student-athletes were the losers. But now they have Mike Stoops, former defensive coordinator at Kansas State and he is a good one.

All week long, we raised issues that were first brought up by SD State coach Tom Croft, that UCLA uses the illegal chop block. That's a block where an ofensive lineman first engages a defensive man up top in a normal blocking position, then another offensive player--o-lineman, tightend, runningback--blocks the same offensive player at the legs. Since the defensive man is engaged (locked) on top, the possibility of fall the wrong way when cut from below is great and often leads to injury. Coach Dorrell is offended by the accusation, but UCLA was called for one illegal chop block against SD State last week. Where there's smoke, there's fire? Maybe. New offensive coordinator Tom Cable has implemented a different blocking scheme--zone blocking instead of man-to-man--which includes cut blocking. This is a block that aims at the feet to up end defensive players. this is a completely legal block. What probably happened was that the timing was off and the cut block occured before the first blocker could move away, which is the basis of zone blocking--movement by the offensive line who block whoever is in front of him then if the play calls for it, to move again into another zone. Oh well, Pac-10 officials have checked film and they have determined that the chop block is not integrated into the Bruins' blocking scheme and that the illegal call was an anomaly. Thank God for small favors.

Enough football...

The second debate was on last night, and as usual the talking heads were all over this. My personal opinion, which doesn't amount to a hill of beans (Bogart, Casablanca) is that Bush looked much better than he did in Miami, but that I am even more frightened by him than ever before. He just seemed angry.

In a recent article by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, Bush is depicted as a "snap judgment" kind of president. In other words, he relies on his instincts to make decisions--which he believes to be right and true--and he sticks to them regardless of whatever other information may come to bear thereafter. This is, in many ways, due to his divorce from reality. As Alter indicates, Bush is perhaps the most secluded president we have known. He is surrounded by men who share his vision and will protect him at all cost. He is kept away from uncontrolled press conferences and interview. If you'll remember, his one-on-one interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press las winter was a disaster. For the 9/11 Commission, the administration insisted that Bush AND Cheney be interviewed together. Why is that? Can't Bush do it alone? The appearance is that even his administration understands his failings. The proof, of course, is in the pudding. Since the Meet the Press fiasco, he has not appeared in public without strict control. He has not interviewed alone since. When he goes out to rallies to make stump speeches, all member of the audience must sign a pledge stating they fully support the president. Because of this coddling, Bush rarely needs to answer tough question about his decisions.

And yesterday's debate was proof of that. When one woman asked him to give three instances in which he realized he had made a bad decision and what he did to correct it, Bushed looked very upset. He started talking about how he made some bad choices in appointments, but on the larger issues, he has not made a mistake. Indeed, he said:

But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right.

That's really what you're -- when they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, "Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?" And the answer is, "Absolutely not." It was the right decision.

The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

Bush looked right at the questioner and began to say, "That's really what you're..." He fortunately caught himself, but it was obvious that he was taking it personally. Poor lady. But that's not the worst of it. He still insists that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. He is even convinced--or probably his handlers have convinced him--that the Duelfer report confirmed his decision--he said it at least twice during the report. Of course, if any of us reads the same report, we would come to the conclusion that the Duelfer report suggests just the opposite. First there were no WMDs in Iraq. And while Bush focuses on Saddam's attempts to get rid of sanctions so he can reconsitute his nuclear program, Kerry had already stated the obvious: The fact that Saddam tried to get rid of sanctions to reconsitute the program suggests that the sanctions actually were working, something the Bush blindly ignores.

While I am an Independent, my heart is actually more Republican than Democrat and it really hurts to see a man such as this at the head of the Republican party.

So did you see the debate? What did you think?

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

I'm still sick but... thanks for the Bookmark!

Thanks to Nefarious_hatter for bookmarking me on the Riceball... er, I mean the RiceBowlJournals. It's a place for Asians to connect through blogs. I have met a bunch of great people here on Xanga--not just Asians, of course--but through RBJ, I have connected with some Asians I might not have met otherwise, such as yenly, steve, shiz, spygirl, aznquarter, and hyojin, just to name a few. Anyway, Hatter, thanks for the bookmark; I added you to my Tomodachi list on both the main page and the comment page.

BTW: I've taken the liberty of putting your mugs in my gallery (bottom of main page). Its just a link from RBJ, but if you would rather not have you face on my page, let me know and I will take it down. I have NOT put links to the face to protect your identity...

I'

m still sick. Being at school all day yesterday did not help me. I wanted to get home early but was unable to due to students needing some help. I'm so loyal to them that it kills me... literally! Just kidding. Anyway, I'm not much better today, but I will go and definitely go home early today to sleep ALL weekend... well except for my Xanga fix, and the Swinging Sam joke, if anyone wants to hear it.

Anyway, yesterday I left you guys without discussing the two things that stood out to me in the debates. Actually, there were three. One about John Edwards and two about Dick Cheney.

First, Cheney is one ruthless son of a bitch. There was a portion of the debate when Edwards stated that 90% of the casualties in Iraq are U.S. casualties, a statement that was meant to underscore the Bush administration's inability to create a significant coalition of allies. Cheney comes back with Iraqi figures. According to the Vice-President, if you include Iraqi casualties, the number of US casualties make up far less. Edward, trying to clarify what he meant, stated that he was referring to the coalition numbers. Right when he said it, I thought, "He shoulda said prefaced his statement with something like, 'in addition to the number of brave Iraqi'". But he didn't and this is how Cheney responded.

CHENEY: Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as...

EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not...

CHENEY: ... as beyond...

EDWARDS: I'm not demeaning...

CHENEY: It is indeed. You suggested...

EDWARDS: No, sir, I did not...

CHENEY: ... somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future.

When Edwards had his chance to speak again, he should have responded directly, and in fact acuse Cheney of distorting his words, that it was a "classic" example of how Cheney misrepresents other people. But he didn't, and John Edwards, in my view, came off as a lightweight. He lacked the gravitas that Cheney or many other politicians have. When Cheney sucker-punched him, he rarely punched back, or he punched back ineffectively.

Cheney sucker punched him again when he talked about Edwards record in the Senate. He accused him of rarely showing up. And as Vice-President, he is also president of the Senate and said:

CHENEY: You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

This was a hard blow by Cheney. Highlighting Edwards poor showing on the Senate floor calls into question his responsibility as a senator. And this would have been a legitimate slam had he not followed this comment with:

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

All of us who have been watching the TV news shows know that this is a lie. He may have not met Edwards on the Senate floor, but this meeting at the debate was not the first meeting. They had met at least twice before at a prayer breakfast and in the studios of Meet the Press. Cheney's comment exposes him as a cheap-shot artist. And I'm not sure I want a cheap-shot artist in the White House, a heart-beat away from the presidency. But what puzzles me is why Edwards did not retort. He surely remembered they had met, but he said nothing. Did he purposely keep mum to let the news people find the mistake so they would spend an entire news cycle focusing on Cheney's lie? Nah, I don't think he's that nimble. At least he didn't seem like it on Tuesday. But deliberate or not, it worked out in his favor as all the presidential election news focused on Cheney's lies.

That's right, "lies", plural. While the "first time I ever met you" was a cheap shot, his other lie has much deeper implications. Either he is a true bastard who will stoop to any level to win, or he is forgetful and out of touch with reality, as Kerry and Edwards have insisted. When Edwards stated that the Bush Administration has taken us to war claiming that there was a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Cheney responded: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11. But there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror." But after that statement, all the news services and talking heads--well, maybe except for those at Fox--showed tape of Cheney's Meet the Press gig where he specifically stated

In September, he told NBC anchor Tim Russert on "Meet the Press'' that "if we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Now I don't know about you guys, but this is really starting to get ugly for me. While John Edwards truly seemed like a lightweight with little experience, I'm not sure I would want a ruthless bully as Vice President either...

What do you think?