One More Thing

Anyone remember how to change file associations in Windows? I need to make it so when I click on links, they come up in Firefox, not IE.

*** Update ***

Ok, fixed. Thanks.



RIP, Bill Walsh

Few men have had as great an impact on their profession:

Bill Walsh, who guided the San Francisco 49ers to three Super Bowl championships and six NFC West division titles in his 10 years as head coach, has died at the age of 75.

Walsh died at his Bay Area home early Monday following a long battle with leukemia, according to Stanford University.

Walsh didn’t become an NFL head coach until 47, and he spent just 10 seasons on the San Francisco sideline. But he left an indelible mark on the United States’ most popular sport, building the once-woebegone 49ers into the most successful team of the 1980s with his innovative offensive strategies and teaching techniques.

The soft-spoken native Californian also produced a legion of coaching disciples that’s still growing today. Many of his former assistants went on to lead their own teams, handing down Walsh’s methods and schemes to dozens more coaches in a tree with innumerable branches.

Walsh went 102-63-1 with the 49ers, winning 10 of his 14 postseason games along with six division titles. He was named the NFL’s coach of the year in 1981 and 1984.

Even as a rabid Steelers fan, who did not love Walsh’s 9er’s? Other than the Cowboys, I mean.

RIP, Bill Walsh. Thanks.








Welcome to the Police State

Wrong, wrong, wrong:

Crime-fighting beats privacy in public places: Americans, by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, support the increased use of surveillance cameras — a measure decried by some civil libertarians, but credited in London with helping to catch a variety of perpetrators since the early 1990s.

Given the chief arguments, pro and con — a way to help solve crimes vs. too much of a government intrusion on privacy — it isn’t close: 71 percent of Americans favor the increased use of surveillance cameras, while 25 percent oppose it.

Count me in the 25%.



More on The CNN/Youtube Debate

There really is no excuse for the Republicans refusing to appear at the CNN/Youtube debate, and Patrick Ruffini is right that the GOP is making a huge tactical mistake if they skip it. It is not even remotely surprising that Hugh Hewitt, man of the people, is spearheading the opposition. Hugh has an authoritarian streak about him, and is convinced the media is out to get him and the Republican party.

They really do believe the media is out to get them- never mind that the media, so slavish to the concept of “balance,” often lends credibility to all manner of absurd statements. Hell, here is an example from today in the NY Times:

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Let’s not focus on what was said (a topic for another post), but that it was written in part by Kenneth Pollack, who is, as we speak being billed on CNN as a “war critic.” Kenneth Pollack wrote “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.” Much more from Glenn on this.

So cowed and afraid of being charged as biased, the media often bends over backwards to accommodate people who generally should be ridiculed or ignored. And so it would be with the CNN/Youtube debate. I am completely convinced that CNN would go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that most of the crazy was removed from the questions, lest they be accused of being liberal or out to get Republicans.

On the other hand, if you were to take Captain Ed’s idea and run with it, there would be no one there to sort out the crazy. The American public would actually get to see what concerns the Republican base. Viewers would be subjected to several hours of discussion about intelligent design, Terri Schiavo, gay marriage, the fear of brown people pouring across the border, reasons to invade Iran, etc.

Which do you think will do the Republican candidates more damage- having to seriously answer questions about how they don’t believe in evolution and questions like that and demonstrating to the rest of America what the Republican base REALLY is, or whatever sane and boring and sanitized questions Anderson Cooper picks out of the pool of questions?

Smart Democrats would be encouraging Republicans to skip the debate and to stage their own controlled event. The results would be devastating to the GOP.

*** Update ***\

Re-reading this, I realize I may not have been very clear. My point is this:

Hugh and others have so convinced themselves the media is out to get them, that they think CNN would pick only questions that would make them look bad. In all actuality, the media is so scared and supine that they would go out of their way to weed out the crazy questions (which would be the majority), in order to appear balanced.

On the other hand, if the blogosphere or the right-wing chose the questions, there would be no one there to weed out the questions that Hugh and company think are “good,” but the rest of the country think make the GOP look insane.








Check Mate

RIP, Ingmar Bergman.








Open Thread

Discuss.








I Think This Is A Great Idea

Captain Ed proposes a solution to the cowardice of the GOP regarding the CNN/Youtube debate:

The flaw in pursuing the debate as it CNN structured it for the Democrats is that CNN chose the questions. Even Joe Biden complained about that selection during the debate, calling the final question — a demand for each candidate to say one thing good and one thing bad about the candidate to their left — a “ridiculous exercise” as he answered it. A review of the transcript shows that the actual questions held little substance and gave little information to voters about the candidates or their positions.

So what’s the solution? How can we engage voters in a national forum through the New Media, while keeping the debate substantive and serious? I have a simple solution: have CNN cede the editorial/selection process to the New Media, in the form of the blogosphere.

This is such a great idea, I have even come up with some questions bloggers could ask.

Hugh Hewitt- Mr. Romney, how much worse than Osama bin Laden are the Democrats? A lot, a whole lot, or oodles?

Red State- Mr. Giuliani, if Obama is elected, will he declare defeat in Iraq and withdraw our troops before surrendering to Iran, or will he surrender to Iran first?

Michelle Malkin- Mr. Romney, if Hillary is elected President, how long do you think it will be before she institutes a policy of forced abortions and mandates the Quran be taught in schools?

Dan Riehl- Mr. Thompson, have you always had such strong shoulders and a chiseled jaw? And if elected, will you find out what happened to Natalie Holloway?

K-Lo- Mr. Romney, are you busy this weekend? As a follow up, you are aware Michelle is not the only one with a cheerleader outfit, aren’t you?

Dean Barnett- Mr. Paul, how long have you been a racist? Have you stopped attending anti-Semitic rallies? Why do you challenge George Bush, who is clearly the greatest thinker of our generation?

John Hindraker- Mr. Thompson, in the past I said the following about President Bush:

“It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.”

Demonstrate to me that you possess the same level of brilliance- please spell CAT.

I think this idea will work out well. Feel free to add your own questions so we can get this thing rolling.