Fantasy football self-imolation

Wow what a lost year, especially considerring that I won it all last year in 2-3 leagues.

This year in my primary league I am sub-500. In the other league that at least "claims" to have a cash prize I need a win this week just to sneak into the playoffs. (I am not sure that I have ever actually seen credible reports of money changing hands from Chadron State).

Of course I am in second in the non-money league. But even that team is stumbling late. I lost first place and my first-round bye in the final week. I am increasingly certain that my team is a first round loser.

Win it all or lose it all. No middle ground. Maybe that bodes well for next year.

The Dangers of Pretending to be holier than thou.

The differences I have always seen between the left and the right have always more about form than substance.

The right is always more interested in telling others why they are right and moral and hold values etc etc. The left is usually looking inwords to see if what the right says is true. By the time it finds out that its not true, its too late for soundbytes.

Case in Point

A summation of the difference between Rhetoric and substance on Iraqi policy:

This story in Slate

Here is some more context on the Army budget issue that is beginning to percolate.

This time its an ARMY TIMES article that with quotes directly from the Army budgetary head.

Repair and refit of existing equipment is not coverred under the series of "emergency" appropriations that have been funding the two wars. Because of this, the army feels that there is no way to fund their transformation (as directed by the Secratary for Defense, which is a strong proponent of force transformation, as am I), and maintain their current forces in a combat ready state.

Rock -> Army <- Hardplace. Im-movable object (Bush) -> Army <- Irresistable force (maintenance, and replenishment) From the Slate story which contained the above link.

• A month earlier, Government Executive reported that Schoomaker had told a group of congressional staffers about grave backlogs at the Army's repair depots. Nearly 1,500 Humvees, M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, and other vehicles were awaiting repair at the Red River Army Depot in Texas. The same was true of 500 M1 tanks at the Anniston depot in Alabama. None of the Army's five largest depots was operating at more than 50 percent capacity—all because of a shortage of money.
• Meanwhile, to meet enlistment targets, the Army has raised the maximum age of recruits to 41, , and—in another recent gulp—relaxed moral and disciplinary standards. The Army has always waived these standards to let in a small number of applicants. But since the Iraq war, this number has risen substantially. In 2001, just 10.07 percent of Army recruits were given moral waivers—i.e., were allowed into the Army, even though they had committed misdemeanors or had once-prohibited problems with drugs and alcohol, records of serious misconduct, or disqualifying medical conditions. By 2004, this number had risen to 11.98 percent. But in 2005, it soared to 15.02 percent. And as of April 2006, according to a fact sheet obtained from an Army officer, the number has leapt to 15.49 percent.

The rug continues to unravel in the army.

A follow up to the first post.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,7311732,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

This spoke to me profoundly from my friends at Penny-Arcade

They draw some funny funny stuff.

Whenever asked why more troops have not been deployed to Iraq to quell the ever spiraling violence he always answers with some version of "If the commanders ask for them they will get them, and I trust their judgement."

This is false on two three. First it puts the onus completely on someone concerned about their career to contradict their commander-in-chief. The preassure to not contradict the political storyline of the administration must be enoromous. Before the war General Eric Shinseki (sp?) was forced to retire nearly 2 years early because he suggested that "several thousand" troops would be needed for complete control of Iraq. Considerring that there have never been more than 200 thousand troops in Iraq, and the state of the country has never even approached being under control, Shinseki seems like a profet now, and he was forced from his job for it.

Secondly, it absolves Bush of any responsibility for either the troop levels, or by extension, the security situation. "All the generals have to do is ask" puts those generals completely in control, except they aren't.

The last, but most damning thing about this glib toss-away line is exemplified in the following L.A. Times Article.

There are only so many troops in the US military. A sizable portion of those troops are committed in Europe, Korea and Japan, and those numbers are treaty regulated.

That leaves only so many troops. To be combat effective, troops must be rotated into and out of combat situations. A human simply cannot fight effectively without a significant break (usually at between 12 and 18 months of deployment). This has been true in all wars from Korea to Vietnam to the present. Because of the limited numbers of troops, we have been forced to deply the "Reserves" completely, and also the "National Guard" who's primary mission is domestic.

Even with all of those measures, there are not enough troops to keep up the current deployment schedule. The men and material are breaking down faster than they can be replaced.

Keep that in mind as you look to possible future commitments.

Think of those loyal, devoted souls who for the best of reasons have volunteered to serve their country.