Both JC and I were referring to the 1960's, not the 1860's.

I know. My point is that segregation wasn't quite the "cherished set of social mores" you characterize it to be; slavery was.

By the way, for those of you who may have missed it, in a partial foreshadowing of what's coming here in November, the so-called "Italian Obama" Walter Veltroni and his party just got their left-wing socialist asses handed to them by pro American, pro Bush, pro liberty Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.

The left wing beatdown there was so bad that the Communists and the Greens have been almost completely drummed out of the government for the first time since the end of WWII.

But granting your example for the sake of argument, I'll leave it to you to judge as to whether the Civil War is exactly a compelling argument against gun control.

Again, why are you so fixated on efficacy as a determinant of rights? Should we also only only protect free speech that has the ability to effect a change? Should we only protect the right to vote in closely contested elections?

But granting your example for the sake of argument, I'll leave it to you to judge as to whether the Civil War is exactly a compelling argument against gun control.

Ever read the Dred Scott decision? That was partially a gun control issue - they didn't want blacks to be armed.

Both JC and I were referring to the 1960's, not the 1860's.

I know. My point is that segregation wasn't quite the "cherished set of social mores" you characterize it to be; slavery was.

Well, duh. But please inform me of any equally compelling issue that you might see on your horizon over the next few decades? Re-institution of estate taxes? Socialized medicine? A Mooselim in the White House?

----------------------

By the way, for those of you who may have missed it, in a partial foreshadowing of what's coming here in November, the so-called "Italian Obama" Walter Veltroni and his party just got their left-wing socialist asses handed to them by pro American, pro Bush, pro liberty Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.

The left wing beatdown there was so bad that the Communists and the Greens have been almost completely drummed out of the government for the first time since the end of WWII.

I guess now all you have to do is to convince the swing state Italians in the U.S. that Obama is really an Ethiopian. I'm sure Hillary will do everything in her power along those lines.

But granting your example for the sake of argument, I'll leave it to you to judge as to whether the Civil War is exactly a compelling argument against gun control.

Ever read the Dred Scott decision? That was partially a gun control issue - they didn't want blacks to be armed.

In other words, if we can attach something negative to the other side of the issue, we win?

In other words, if we can attach something negative to the other side of the issue, we win?

People here talk about the cocaine v. crack example as a law in which its roots were racism (which I agree with). That the roots of gun control in the US were partially due to racism is equally relevant.

People here talk about the cocaine v. crack example as a law in which its roots were racism (which I agree with). That the roots of gun control were racism is equally relevant.

It's not at all relevant when the laws no longer do anything that is racist in it's intent or outcome. We aren't banning guns that, for one reason or another, black people tend to own significantly more. We aren't banning guns that are much cheaper than other, similar guns, or guns that rich people prefer and poor people can't get.

I guess now all you have to do is to convince the swing state Italians in the U.S. that Obama is really an Ethiopian. I'm sure Hillary will do everything in her power along those lines.

Forget about Hillary, what do you think about that Maureen Dowd piece? It's got to be more than a little uncomfortable for an Obamahead to read a liberal New York Times columnist saying that he acts like an anthropologist from Borneo!

You had to be squirming in your chair after that one, huh?

But granting your example for the sake of argument, I'll leave it to you to judge as to whether the Civil War is exactly a compelling argument against gun control.

Again, why are you so fixated on efficacy as a determinant of rights? Should we also only only protect free speech that has the ability to effect a change? Should we only protect the right to vote in closely contested elections?

Dan, the point here wasn't exactly efficacy....

Ever read the Dred Scott decision? That was partially a gun control issue - they didn't want blacks to be armed.

Look, in the first place we're not in disagreement over gun control, especially since you say that you're also in favor of registration. This is strictly about how we interpret specific historical events.

And historically speaking, the hypothetical example of Dred Scott, and the more concrete examples of Nat Turner and John Brown, are far better examples of why gun ownership is a great thing. But again historically, it does seem worth noting that in these cases, the same people who were gung ho about using their own guns to fight in defense of slavery were (naturally) not quite as enthusiastic when private citizens were turning the guns in their direction. So we're not exactly talking high principles here.

And I'll ask you as I asked JC: What armed insurrections in the next few decades would you even hypothetically be thinking about joining? Abstractions are fine, but let's also get real here. Give me at least one even remotely possible real life example.

Forget about Hillary, what do you think about that Maureen Dowd piece? It's got to be more than a little uncomfortable for an Obamahead to read a liberal New York Times columnist saying that he acts like an anthropologist from Borneo!

You had to be squirming in your chair after that one, huh?

Uh, no, not really. Maureen Dowd may be "liberal," but her writing hasn't been taken seriously by anybody I know (including [especially?] liberal Democrats) for years. She jumped the shark sometime around the 2000 election.

I'm also guessing Dowd preferred Clinton to Obama to start with, but that's another story.

I know. My point is that segregation wasn't quite the "cherished set of social mores" you characterize it to be; slavery was.

Right. And just like in the 1860s, desegregation by Yankee decree was resisted, including even by a state militia ... right until Yankee firepower showed up.

We aren't banning guns that, for one reason or another, black people tend to own significantly more.

I don't believe that gun control is really an instance of rich white people telling poor black people what is best for them. I know of very few educated urban black people who trumpet the virtues of the second amendment.

And if the proliferation of guns is the residue of a drug culture that largely came about due to racist laws (as you seem to be conceding), then trying to reverse course on that strand of cultural imperialism is hardly a separate form of authoritarianism.

I guess now all you have to do is to convince the swing state Italians in the U.S. that Obama is really an Ethiopian. I'm sure Hillary will do everything in her power along those lines.

Forget about Hillary, what do you think about that Maureen Dowd piece? It's got to be more than a little uncomfortable for an Obamahead to read a liberal New York Times columnist saying that he acts like an anthropologist from Borneo!

You had to be squirming in your chair after that one, huh?

I read it early this morning, and as I said earlier to JC, her points were well taken. I said immediately after Obama's remarks that they were at best clumsy, and I'll add without reservation that I've seen many academics who suffer from the disease of condescension. It's one big reason that one of my most cherished memories of Duke was kissing the sidewalk the minute after I walked out of my last class before graduation. It was almost as sweet as Larry Miller's buzzer-beating layup in Cameron where I was the only one cheering.

But to me this is a learning situation for Obama, one which he's fully capable of absorbing. It's not life or death for him in the long run, as long as he takes the reaction to heart, and especially develops a greater understanding of the power of words to offend, however unintentionally. You might also want to note that Dowd is still very much in Obama's corner. There's nothing wrong with friends criticizing friends, even bluntly when it seems necessary.

By the way, for those of you who may have missed it, in a partial foreshadowing of what's coming here in November, the so-called "Italian Obama" Walter Veltroni and his party just got their left-wing socialist asses handed to them by pro American, pro Bush, pro liberty Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.

Well, then. Guess the GOP's fortunate Italy's demographics, voting patterns, and issues of salience in this election cycle are identical to those of the United States.

"I'm also guessing Dowd preferred Clinton to Obama to start with, but that's another story."

She doesn't seem to like either one very much, but she's been going after Obama for at least six months now. There was one column in particular that I remember, where she went out of her way to try and feminize him, calling him a debutante and stuff like that.

Maureen Dowd criticizing a political candidate in a race against a female candidate...

Yes, I will need several weeks to recover from the shock of that one

I'm also guessing Dowd preferred Clinton to Obama to start with, but that's another story.

Not exactly, unless grits ain't groceries, eggs ain't poultry, and Mona Lisa was a man. With apologies to Little Milton.

I don't believe that gun control is really an instance of rich white people telling poor black people what is best for them. I know of very few educated urban black people who trumpet the virtues of the second amendment.

I don't believe gun control is an instance of rich white people telling poor black people what is best for the either. How did you get that out of what I posted?

She doesn't seem to like either one very much, but she's been going after Obama for at least six months now. There was one column in particular that I remember, where she went out of her way to try and feminize him, calling him a debutante and stuff like that.

She's been doing this stuff for years, starting with her painting Gore as an effete metrosexual 8 years ago. For a purported "liberal columnist," she writes a lot of weird stuff. She's pretty clearly not a Republican, so I don't know what her deal is. I think she fell in love with the sound of her own wit, such as it is. She is not any sort of standard bearer for any particular political viewpoint anymore, if she ever was.

Basically, she's Ann Althouse's clone at this stage.

Springsteen endorsed Obama today. I will listen to The Ghost of Tom Joad on the way to my night job tonight (a math class for bitter, gun-toting construction workers, funnily enough).

Maureen Dowd may be "liberal," but her writing hasn't been taken seriously by anybody I know (including [especially?] liberal Democrats) for years.

I wouldn't necessarily say that, retro. I bet Dowd's a great lay. You have to take something like that seriously.

"For a purported 'liberal columnist,' she writes a lot of weird stuff. She's pretty clearly not a Republican, so I don't know what her deal is."

I think she's just an opportunist, always looking for a chance to bite the hamstring. Hyenas don't have much ideology, just a stomach and a pair of jaws.

I bet Dowd's a great lay

So, kevin, Lay Lady Lay, Viagra, now this. Gotta like a guy who stays focused on what's important--sex and sports--while the rest of us waste time on gun control and the presidential election.

Playoff time in the NBA. Should be some good series in the West and East finals.

I wouldn't necessarily say that, retro. I bet Dowd's a great lay.

Maybe for a dude your age. ;-)

Hold on a second retro, I thought you had me on "ignore". How did you respond so quickly in 711 when I wasn't even cited?

I think she's just an opportunist, always looking for a chance to bite the hamstring. Hyenas don't have much ideology, just a stomach and a pair of jaws.

That's probably about right.

Hold on a second retro, I thought you had me on "ignore". How did you respond so quickly in 711 when I wasn't even cited?

On slow workdays, I'm occasionally wanting for easy entertainment. I have confidence in your ability to work your way back to my "ignore" bin quickly enough.

FWIW, your political posts are generally a lot more entertaining (if unintentionally so) than your monotonous steroid thread posts.

Well, then. Guess the GOP's fortunate Italy's demographics, voting patterns, and issues of salience in this election cycle are identical to those of the United States.

Given where "Republican sweep" is trading at InTrade, I'd say Joey B. has another chance to put his money where his mouth is.

Given where "Republican sweep" is trading at InTrade, I'd say Joey B. has another chance to put his money where his mouth is.

I'm surprised Joey didn't bolster his case further by noting the outstanding political successes recently enjoyed by the pro-Bush elements in Spain and the UK.

Then again, I suppose Spaniards and Brits are easily dismissed as paella and kidney pie-eating surrender monkeys, respectively.

So, kevin, Lay Lady Lay, Viagra, now this. Gotta like a guy who stays focused on what's important--sex and sports--while the rest of us waste time on gun control and the presidential election.

I always said, robin-you gotta stay focused. See, I'm going to HK next week to see my wife for the first time in 4 months. I'm getting my game face on.

I'm voting for Obama cause he could kick Hillary's behind in one-on-one. That, and I wouldn't want to screw Hillary, even for practice.

That, and I wouldn't want to screw Hillary, even for practice.

I wouldn't screw Hillary with Ann Coulter's dick.

I had the debate with someone (Szym?) over taking guns away from the people who needed them to protect themselves in the bad parts of Baltimore, but I've never heard any stats regarding how many or what sort of crimes were stopped by gun owners. Does anyone have these figures?

As others have pointed out, this is difficult to ascertain. And although I'm too lazy to go spelunking through the FBI UCRs to find out, my strong suspicion is that, for instance, the rates of B&Es;in gun states would be much, much lower than the rates in non-gun states. If I were the lawbreaking sort, I'd be much more likely to break into a house in Chicago, where I live now, than I would've been back in Mississippi, where I'm from. In the latter scenario, I'd have a much better chance of having my head blown off. In Texas, I probably wouldn't walk across someone's yard.

Anecdotally, when I lived in Jackson, MS, I once pointed a loaded 12-gauge at someone who appeared to be trying to steal my car. He ran off. Now that I no longer have a shotgun under my bed (wife doesn't like them, fear of running afoul of somewhat inscrutable Chicago gun laws), I'd probably yell or throw something at the guy, and wind up with no car.

I know these isolated incidents don't inform the debate all that much, but my experiences and horse sense tell me that guns deter. As for the need for better shooter education, amen.

You're responding to a point I wasn't making, of course, and I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse. I was commenting on the obvious elitism of her comment, which is not dependent on whether she's running for office or not, and which points up the irony of those who hold *clearly* elitist views objecting to Obama on the basis of his allegedly elitist views.

No, I was responding to your point by pointing out the obvious. Obama's trying to get elected and Becki Farmer is not. Her "elitism" is irrelevant. If Obama's as dumb as you, he's free to reply, "Look, this elitism thing goes both ways. Check out what Becki Farmer said!" But, of course, he's not dumb and he would (and should) never do that. I agree w/rr and you that her comment evinces stupid provincialism. I disagree that somehow that's relevant to him getting into the WH.

Andy:

I have no idea what point you think you're making or how you think constant references to my being in Fantasyland advance it. I'm quite content in the U.S., as are most U.S. citizens. I see very little to fight against the gov't over and one reason for that is the culture of liberty it serves (even in its weakest moments) and of which gun ownership is a part. I was disputing the insipid notion that the US military's possession of the bomb somehow renders an armed insurrection futile. That's nonsense. The historical examples to which I pointed show that, as in every case, modern militaries faced enormous insurgent pressures from local populations. Taking homes, neighborhoods, and cities is different from, and more difficult than defeating opposing armies. I would think this has been demonstrated in spades recently. And when, as Zim points out, you add to that that the army would be itself a local army, you add further complications making its victory less likely.

ALOU: Do you know the ratio of civilian deaths caused by the US to civilian deaths caused by Iraqi "insurgents"?

According to this Washington Post story, which is based on a survey done by "a team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists," 70% of civilian deaths through October, 2006 were caused by insurgents.

If that figure is roughly accurate, I would guess that in the last year and a half, the number of civilian deaths caused by insurgents* has gone up significantly. Why? Because about 75% of the civilian deaths caused by U.S./coalition airstrikes and groundfire happened in the first months of the war. Once the Saddamite Army was defeated and the insurgency began, all of the intentional targetting of civilians has been by the insurgents and therefore almost all of the killing of civilians has been by these groups.

* As Alou has pointed out, there are members of the current Iraqi army, aligned with or a part of factional militias, who have wantonly killed civilians. Insofar as they were and are acting against orders, I would count those in the same category as killings of civilians by insurgents. However, not all deaths by the Iraqi army is in that category. As such, it's reasonable to distinguish between civilian deaths caused by a) U.S./coalition forces; b) the Saddamite Army; c) the new Iraqi Army acting on behalf of its government; and d) insurgents. Since 2004, it is the last group which overwhelmingly has been responsible for civilian deaths in Iraq.

FWIW, your political posts are generally a lot more entertaining (if unintentionally so) than your monotonous steroid thread posts.

Fortunately, I think even the dimmest of the dim bulbs are starting to realize that I was right about Barry Bonds all along, so that dead horse is being beaten less and less all the time.

Personally, I've finding the game much more fun and interesting this year now that the era of the 'roid freak is finally over. For the first time in a while the game actually resembles real baseball!

Then again, I suppose Spaniards and Brits are easily dismissed as paella and kidney pie-eating surrender monkeys, respectively.

i was thinking about the traditional European powers last night as I was walking home from the subway. Here's one of history's greatest ironies:

France is the only significant European power who has not been defeated by the United States in a war at least once.

Contemplate that for a moment.

Another thing, robin. I believe in keeping things simple.

Sex, sports and suds. It doesn't get any better.

If Obama's as dumb as you, he's free to reply, "Look, this elitism thing goes both ways. Check out what Becki Farmer said!"

Blow me, you sanctimonious prick.

Oh, and I stand by my original point: for voters to espouse "elitist" sentiments and oppose political figures solely on the basis of those figures' "elitism" is hypocritical (particularly when those "elitist" sentiments are offered to counter the original "elitist" statements), though Becki and her ilk are of course free to vote for whomever they like. And I agree that Obama could have been more politic in his statements.

How can people make this idiotic claim w/o any reflection? Do you really think even our military could suppress a widespread armed insurrection? Look at Baghdad (smaller than NYC). Look at the Soviet's experience with the mujahadeen. Look at friggin Mogadishu. You know what? An armed citizenry is an amazing check on gov't ambitions.

The Winter War may be a less tidy example, but it also applies.

Playoff time in the NBA. Should be some good series in the West and East finals.

I'm kinda pissed Kobe probably going to win the MVP award. It should be going to Garnett, or even Chris Paul, if you wnat to go with a guy who's been carrying a lesser team on his back.

It's kind of like Kareem winning in 1977, even though Walton was quite clearly the MVP.

There's no justice in this world.

I was reading a travel book for children
Written by children's author Mrs Favell Lee Mortimer in the 1840s I think.

Essentially she hates all races of the earth and uses this book to explain to children why.
But her stance on the French is amusing considering subsequent events.

One of the few positive comments she has on anyone in the world is
"The French are brave in war"

I guess it was all downhill after Sedan though...

Do you really think even our military could suppress a widespread armed insurrection? Look at Baghdad (smaller than NYC). Look at the Soviet's experience with the mujahadeen. Look at friggin Mogadishu. You know what? An armed citizenry is an amazing check on gov't ambitions.

I can't believe you are using these examples as a demonstration of the positive benefits of gun possession. I can't think of 3 places I would rather avoid than Baghdad, Grozny and Mogadishu.

And I guess it's easy to forget, but the French did win WW1.

Sure they had help, and the 1917 Mutinies kind of derailed them as an offensive force, but they were among the quickest (just behind the Germans) to adapt to modern warfare. Compare the British and French failures/successes in the Battle of the Somme for one.

I don't know what my point is. I guess just that I'm never entirely sure why France has been singled out as paragons of cowardice. I suppose the fact that I find WW2 dull and don't read much about it probably accounts for my confusion.

Blow me, you sanctimonious prick.

I don't think "sanctimonious" captures what you mean, but that doesn't surprise me.

So, wow, your point was that you think you caught Becki Farmer in hypocrisy? Score one for you! I'm sure that's an enormous consolation to the Obama campaign.

Personally, I've finding the game much more fun and interesting this year now that the era of the 'roid freak is finally over. For the first time in a while the game actually resembles real baseball!

Last year of the 'roid freak era, April: 37.4 AB/HR, 4.12 ERA

First year of real baseball, April: 36.0 AB/HR, 4.14 ERA

The changes are just shocking.

The Winter War may be a less tidy example, but it also applies.

To repeat: Not a one of those insurrections was fought with merely the type of arms possessed by private persons in the United States. Each had and used relatively modern weaponry of the types possessed by relatively modern organized militaries.

Sure they had help, and the 1917 Mutinies kind of derailed them as an offensive force, but they were among the quickest (just behind the Germans) to adapt to modern warfare. Compare the British and French failures/successes in the Battle of the Somme for one.

I don't know what my point is. I guess just that I'm never entirely sure why France has been singled out as paragons of cowardice. I suppose the fact that I find WW2 dull and don't read much about it probably accounts for my confusion.

Part of it is that they didn't have any reserves, and the country fell apart once Paris was taken. Sure, there was a very strong resistance, but Germany was solidly in control.

I think the biggest factor is our disdain for French culture. We consider their men to be far too feminine for our tastes, and have thrown anything French into a category that's just for women and feminine men.

I can't believe you are using these examples as a demonstration of the positive benefits of gun possession.

Yeah, that was the point.

And I guess it's easy to forget, but the French did win WW1.

It's my bet, Greg, that centuries from now, the two 20th century great wars will be considered as tow episodes of the same great conflict, in the same way the Punic wars between Rome and Carthage are now.

France technically was the winner in both but I'm hard-pressed to think of another example of a victor looking so bad and losing so much after coming out on top in such a titantic conflict.

I'm sure that's an enormous consolation to the Obama campaign.

Almost as much consolation as the polls showing he's gaining on Clinton, especially among religious Democrats.

To repeat: Not a one of those insurrections was fought with merely the type of arms possessed by private persons in the United States. Each had and used relatively modern weaponry of the types possessed by relatively modern organized militaries.

Which, again, is completely irrelevant - if Iraqis can come up with the modern weaponry when they have an insurrection, so can Americans.

You're right about that
1918 wasn't the most glorious of victories

You're probably right about WW1 and 2 being one conflict. I just tend to always separate them in my mind because I stop paying attention around 1919. History gets incredibly dull for me beyond that point.

Which probably isn't a good attitude for a history grad student to have, but what the hey!

So, wow, your point was that you think you caught Becki Farmer in hypocrisy? Score one for you! I'm sure that's an enormous consolation to the Obama campaign.

The point -- which has always been the point -- is that the claim of condescension had nothing to do with the content of what was said, and everything to do with the hopelessly biased belief of some that people like Barack Obama regularly condescend to people like Becki Farmer because ... well, that's what liberals do.

And thus, in that world of imagination, Becki Farmer declaring her values explicitly and unreservedly superior isn't condescending (or anything like it), but Barack Obama doing nothing of the sort is.

To repeat: Not a one of those insurrections was fought with merely the type of arms possessed by private persons in the United States.

Well, the Finns used guns, Molotov cocktails, knowledge of the terrain, the weather, and captured weapons.

Which, again, is completely irrelevant - if Iraqis can come up with the modern weaponry when they have an insurrection, so can Americans.

And so they don't need their popguns.

Took awhile, but we got there ....

France technically was the winner in both but I'm hard-pressed to think of another example of a victor looking so bad and losing so much after coming out on top in such a titantic conflict.

Byzantines v. Latin Empire?

And so they don't need their popguns, as explained above.

Sorry Andy, Sugar Bear is the one that thinks efficacy is a necessary component of individual rights.

"I'm kinda pissed Kobe probably going to win the MVP award. It should be going to Garnett, or even Chris Paul, if you wnat to go with a guy who's been carrying a lesser team on his back."

If you are familiar with the best NBA website ever, you might understand that Lebron James is actually the most valuable player in the NBA this year. Here is how the vote should go, but won't:

1. Lebron James
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Manu Ginobili*
4. Chris Paul
4. Dirk Nowitzki
6. Kobe Bryant

* Ginobili is easily the most underrated great player in the NBA. Because Manu and KG didn't play the minutes (due to injuries) of the other top MPV candidates, it's possible that they both deserve to be down-graded some.

Yeah, that was the point.

Even if your point was different, that these are examples of ineffective suppression, they are wrong. The Russians have effectively, if brutally, crushed the Chechen rebellion.

What you are doing is picking out examples where there is an extraordinally weak central government in place. I don't think I have to remeind you that the US government is not extraordinally weak, as they so amply demonstrated in Little Rock in 1957.

Andy:

I have no idea what point you think you're making or how you think constant references to my being in Fantasyland advance it. I'm quite content in the U.S., as are most U.S. citizens. I see very little to fight against the gov't over and one reason for that is the culture of liberty it serves (even in its weakest moments) and of which gun ownership is a part. I was disputing the insipid notion that the US military's possession of the bomb somehow renders an armed insurrection futile. That's nonsense. The historical examples to which I pointed show that, as in every case, modern militaries faced enormous insurgent pressures from local populations. Taking homes, neighborhoods, and cities is different from, and more difficult than defeating opposing armies. I would think this has been demonstrated in spades recently. And when, as Zim points out, you add to that that the army would be itself a local army, you add further complications making its victory less likely.

JC,

Clearly we're talking past each other here. That line about the US military's possession of "the bomb" has nothing to do with anything. I never mentioned any "bomb." It's more the US National Guard, federalized or not, which has mangaged to suppress each and every uprising in history (again, Civil War aside) without all that much fuss.

I guess I'm still waiting for you to take it from Iraq and Afghanistan to any remotely possible U.S. hypothetical scenario. You might start by imagining any scenario that would be worse than Mississippi or Alabama in the decade after Brown. And believe me, you're going to need every ounce of imagination to top that time and place when it comes to social tension that permeated an entire U.S. region from its highest officials on down, and not just fringe groups hiding out in cabins in the woods.

I'll say it again. If that didn't produce an armed uprising against the government, nothing will. If after ten years of inflammatory racial rhetoric from nearly every elected official; and near-universal gun possession; and with the South ending up on its collective knees; and federal marshals putting blacks on the voting rolls---if after all that, there wasn't any insurrection, it's never going to happen. They'll repeal Social Security first.

82 games.com is awesome. Do you read Hollinger and Pelton? I would vote for Garnett, James #2, Paul #3, and Bryant #4 (I am a lifelong Laker diehard) in spite of James' numbers. Garnett holds the defense together as well as providing offense and rebounding. I went up to LA for Spurs/Lakers on Sunday, and the Spurs saw life without Ginobili,getting blown out in the second half, but I don't think he is "underrated" unless you mean by very casual fans. He gets props all the time as one of the "Big 3" in SA. He has stepped up his game this year, but I don't see him as under the radar.

I'm kinda pissed Kobe probably going to win the MVP award. It should be going to Garnett, or even Chris Paul, if you wnat to go with a guy who's been carrying a lesser team on his back. It's kind of like Kareem winning in 1977, even though Walton was quite clearly the MVP.

There's no justice in this world.

The Patriots did lose in the Super Bowl, so there's clearly some justice. And since when has the MVP been fair? Bryant clearly deserved it two years ago and arguably last year as well when he dragged a second division team into the playoffs by himself.

I'd give it to Lebron this year, Paul second. I see no injustice in Bryant winning it.

If you are familiar with the best NBA website ever, you might understand that Lebron James is actually the most valuable player in the NBA this year.

PER grotesquely underestimates defense, Rich, and it's mostly defense that makes Garnett so valuable.

I don't know what my point is. I guess just that I'm never entirely sure why France has been singled out as paragons of cowardice.

Basically due to WW-II
If you look at their history up till then, not so much, in fact much of the time they were bunch of war mongering SOBs (along with most of Europe I might add).

And I guess it's easy to forget, but the French did win WW1.

way back when I was in College, I took a 5 credit course on WWI...
what amused me was reading about how insistent the French Government and Military leaders were on characterizing the war as a French "Victory". (The UK and the US rode their coattails)

The populace really believed none of that crap- oh they came out better than Germany, but they'd just spent 5 years with this great conflagration being fought on their land- they survived, but they weren't "victorious".

France's ineffectiveness in WWII stems from many many factors, inept military leadership, inept political leadership, the sheer effectiveness of the German military machine, but one factor was the unwillingness of many to fight once the tide of battle was clear- A French victory (or even a draw) could come only after a long drawn out battle lasting years and costing hundreds of thousands of lives - like WW-I

and most French men and woman had long decided that the benefits of that particular "victory" were massively outweighed by the costs, ergo it made sense to simply surrender.

And France surrendered- BEFORE- a significant chunk of its military was ever engaged in the battle.

Germany was thus able to:
1: Not have to expand as much war material as it would have if France fought longer.
2: Not suffered as many casualties as they would have if France had fought longer.
3: To resupply their own armies with undamaged and unused French Military equipment and use them against others.

To someone who was not French and using 20/20 hindsight, France's militarily premature surrender was a tragedy, and completely despicable. But most countries had never suffered as much as France had in WWI.

Bryant clearly deserved it two years ago and arguably last year as well when he dragged a second division team into the playoffs by himself.

He's never, ever deserved the MVP award. Not even come close to be considered for deserving it.

If you are familiar with the best NBA website ever, you might understand that Lebron James is actually the most valuable player in the NBA this year. Here is how the vote should go, but won't:

Please. In the name of Walt Frazier, Bingo Smith, Slick Watts, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Zaid Abdul-Aziz, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Tariq Abdul-Wahad and all that is sacred, please tell me there aren't spreadsheets with "Roland Ratings" with a single boiled-down number "ranking" basketball players. No.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

They did it to baseball; I can't let them do it to basketball.(**)

For reasons having nothing to do with Roland Ratings, LBJ is the best player in the Association and its rightful MVP.

(**) All that stuff about the hopelessness of armed insurrection from before? Forget it.

Do you read Hollinger and Pelton?

Hollinger's OK. I think he has a tendency to drink his own Kool-Aid a little too much but I at least think he's aware of the statistical weaknesses in his formulations.

Pelton's an out-and-out moron.

I don't think I have to remeind you that the US government is not extraordinally weak, as they so amply demonstrated in Little Rock in 1957.

To me, the most important takeaway on the whole question of armed resistance to tyranny, or invasion, or whatever, is how much we just don't know. I mean, it's like giving someone the Opening Day rosters for an MLB season and asking him to predict how important starting pitching will be in the World Series. There's so many variables in play that saying for sure that civilian gun possession is either useless or absolutely vital is more revelatory of the speaker's own preconceptions than it is of anything related to the real world.

So I don't think there's much chance of settling the firearms question, or even making any progress toward doing so, by debating those hypotheticals. The U.S. isn't Vietnam, it isn't Japan, it isn't Iraq, it isn't Chechnya, it isn't the Phillipines, it isn't occupied France, it isn't post-WW2 Germany -- some or all of these situations may have some relevance if, deity forbid, the U.S. ever finds itself in a similar fix, but we are unlikely to know which ones and what relevance until the situation is actually upon us. And it won't do us much good in setting policy then.

In every insurgency, one of the first issues is getting weapons. In each of those mentioned above, the primary weapons used were guns. As in Mogadishu, Afghanistan, Finland, the Phillippines, Baghdad, wherever, guns are the most common and effective weapon. As I said earlier, the Afghani resistance to Communist rule began with very few weapons, and what they had were relatively antique rifles. As Dayn mentions happened in Finland, happened in Afghanistan: insurgents stole and captured weapons, or Army deserters brought them with them. But these weren't artillery, or planes, or helicopters, or even missiles (yet). The Somalis held off the Rangers tanks, helicopters, armored vehicles and Rangers themselves mostly with AKs.

Taking a city is very difficult. Small relatively primitive weapons are enormously effective in these fights, as Petraeus's "COIN" manual showed. An armed citizenry, even with its "popguns" is a citizenry threatening to any state's authoritarian ambitions.

Bryant clearly deserved it two years ago and arguably last year as well when he dragged a second division team into the playoffs by himself.

He's never, ever deserved the MVP award. Not even come close to be considered for deserving it.

When you average around 35-5-5 and make the All-Defensive first team, you deserve some consideration.

I think the biggest factor is our disdain for French culture. We consider their men to be far too feminine for our tastes, and have thrown anything French into a category that's just for women and feminine men.

French society is much, much less of a joiner, do-good-through-joining society than ours. You'd think that would appeal to the libertarian spirit.

I would vote for Garnett, James #2, Paul #3, and Bryant #4 (I am a lifelong Laker diehard) in spite of James' numbers.

I'm OK with this list. Kobe been a team ballplayer this year. Which begs the question why he didn't play like this before, since he clearly had the ability to.

I think Garnett's been better than leBron this year. But I really, really love Lebron.

You know, after years in the wilderness with guys like Iverson, Marbury and the spoiled Kobe being the poster children for professional basketball, we're finally emerging with a new set of superstars who are great basketball players with charismatic games and genuinely likable human beings like LeBron and Dwight Howard and Chris Paul.

I think the biggest factor is our disdain for French culture. We consider their men to be far too feminine for our tastes

I thought the biggest factor was that they obviously don't like us- so why should we like them?

I'd give it to Lebron this year, Paul second. I see no injustice in Bryant winning it.

The Lakers only got really good -- good enough for its best player to win the MVP -- after the Grizz gifted them Gasol. No way Kobe's the MVP.

Even if your point was different, that these are examples of ineffective suppression, they are wrong. The Russians have effectively, if brutally, crushed the Chechen rebellion.

So, the proof that my example of Afghanistan was wrong is the fact that the Russians crushed the Chechens?

You know, after years in the wilderness with guys like Iverson, Marbury and the spoiled Kobe being the poster children for professional basketball, we're finally emerging with a new set of superstars who are great basketball players with charismatic games and genuinely likable human beings like LeBron and Dwight Howard and Chris Paul.

Though it's not the dominant narrative, the '03 draft turned the league around every bit as much as Magic and Bird's entry.

When you average around 35-5-5 and make the All-Defensive first team, you deserve some consideration.

1.) points are irrevelant. World B. free averaged 30 points a game too and i wouldn't have wanted him anywhere my team.

2) when you chase a championship-caliber team's other superstar out of town, and then sulk that the team now sucks, you get 5 years worth of demerit points for that.

3) the scoring average is a function of his willingness to jack it up on every posession, not his ability to make shots.

4) 5 rebounds and 5 assists a game is a joke for someone of Kobe's ability.

The Lakers only got really good -- good enough for its best player to win the MVP -- after the Grizz gifted them Gasol.

That was a ridiculous, infuriating trade that would have gotten rejected in a fantasy league. I'm getting irritated just thinking about it.

Not many Canadians like America, but we have no problem co-operating together to produce stellar comedy or MVP basketballers.

Or maybe they're just better at masking it than the French

EDIT: that was horribly worded, I shoud clarify that I'm Canadian

Garnett is a great, great player. Don't get me wrong. But he has much better teammates than Lebron has. Personally, I'm more of a KG fan than a Lebron fan. I wish the numbers said otherwise. But I think Lebron is the MVP, this year.

As far as Manu being underrated, I would say this: He was objectively one of the best 5 players in the NBA this year. If you polled a good random sampling of all NBA fans, what percentage would put him in the top 5? Or even in the top 10? If I had to guess, this is how I think the fans would rank the best 10 players in the NBA in order:

1. Kobe Bryant
2. Tim Duncan
3. Lebron James
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Chris Paul
6. Dirk Diggler
7. Dwyane Wade
8. Tracy McGrady
9. Yao Ming
10. Alan Iverson
10. Carmelo Anthony

Ginobili, Paul Pierce and Chris Bosh, all highly respected, tend to get overlooked, from what I see. If there is a highly overrated (yet still very good) player, it is Carmelo Anthony. He's a brilliant scorer, but does nothing else.

So, the proof that my example of Afghanistan was wrong is the fact that the Russians crushed the Chechens?

If you're bringing up Afghanistan, then that's just another example of another country with an extraordinally weak central government.

Let's use an other example, the Basque separatist movement in Spain. That one's gotten no traction at all. Why? Because Spain has a strong and stable central government.

The Somalis held off the Rangers tanks, helicopters, armored vehicles and Rangers themselves mostly with AKs.

Um no, 100 Rangers held off more than 10 times that many armed Somalis.

The mis-reporting of that Battle has been downright bizarre

Andy:

I have to agree w/DMN's characterization of your argumentative mode. Why is the issue "come up with some scenario where there's a rebellion" when it was "How effective can an armed insurrection be?" I have no idea why you think I have to answer that question, or have a stake in it.

Kevin, the Roland Rating includes +/- numbers, which account for defense.

i don't like using those, for some rather obvious reasons. For one, they don't account for any context at all.

I'm OK with this list. Kobe been a team ballplayer this year. Which begs the question why he didn't play like this before, since he clearly had the ability to.

This is such a oft-repeated crock of ####. The 2005-2007 Lakers were, apart from Kobe and Odom, a collection of not-yets and never-will-bes. For chrissakes, they started Smush Parker and Kwame Brown. If you're looking at great players taking subpar talent into the post-season for those two seasons, the list starts with Kobe Bryant.

According to this Washington Post story, which is based on a survey done by "a team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists," 70% of civilian deaths through October, 2006 were caused by insurgents.

As per IBC, through 2006, 80% of civilian deaths were caused by US armed forces. I agree with Rich it's likely come down since then. Maybe it's as "good" as 50/50 by now.

No-one will ever know the true figure because the US declines to count the "collateral damage," because to do so might lead to adverse publicity.

I would also draw a distinction between Dresden, Hiroshima, etc which (whether you approve or disapprove of these actions morally) the purpose of the operation was to destroy entire cities. As such the civilian casualties were part of the whole intent. That's what makes those bombings of enduring controversy. I wasn't saying that the US forces have (rogue elements aside) been deliberately targetting civilians, rather that avoiding killing them has been, at best, a very low priority.

1. Kobe Bryant

Not to defend Kevin, but I see his point in Kobe-
if Kobe simply shut up and played, then he'd have an argument for being the best player, and maybe strictly on the court he's the best player.

But...

Any team that has Kobe has to deal with the whole package, and some of the things he does are pretty destructive to the team's goal of winning.

Um no, 100 Rangers held off more than 10 times that many armed Somalis.

The mis-reporting of that Battle has been downright bizarre

The Somalis had some rocket launchers, they shot down some Black Hawks, we had no skin in the game and no reason to bet there, and we left.

How that became some kind of model for what would happen in the United States if the US government enforced its own laws in its own country with all necessary force is, one must confess, something of a mystery.

And no one is even contemplating the more realistic danger in the US, which is an oppressive government (or an oppressive faction) enlisting private militias on its side.

How did you get that out of what I posted?

It's probably past the point now, but I was agreeing with you in the discussion about gun control compared to cocaine.

and we left.

Government decision after the fact.

I was defending the Rangers- the post I was responding to implied that the Rangers were outfought by the Somalis, which was simply not true, they outfought the Somalis

But again historically, it does seem worth noting that in these cases, the same people who were gung ho about using their own guns to fight in defense of slavery were (naturally) not quite as enthusiastic when private citizens were turning the guns in their direction. So we're not exactly talking high principles here.

That was true of the North and South though. When Lincoln tried to conscript black soldiers he specifically outlined that they be given support duties, not guns.

Until the Gettysburg Address, the freeing of slaves was about property, not equality. Lincoln got considerable pushback that the North was fighting over the Constitution, which said nothing about equality, not the DoI. Slaves should be free, but they were NOT considered equal by northerners.

He's never, ever deserved the MVP award. Not even come close to be considered for deserving it

.

Going into the off-season, the Lakers had three basic problems:

1. Lack of a low post presence
2. Inadequate point guard play
3. Lack of athleticism/defense on the wings

"Kobe Bryant's being a selfish assshole" was the #1 story, but had very little to do with the actual performance of the team.

Amazingly, all three problems have been addressed, through trades and internal development:

1. Development of Bynum and acquisition of Gasol
2. Release of Parker, acquisition of Fisher, development of Farmar
3. Although it was under the radar and he immediately got hurt, acquisition of Trevor Ariza

As a bonus, Vujacic and Turiaf have developed into useful players as well. The run Sunday that buried the Spurs came with Bryant and Gasol on the bench, and was helped by Turiaf and Vujacic. In addition, Gasol is perfect as a #2 option, and Odom is now very comfortable as third option/jack of all trades. The team is 22-5 when Gasol has played.

As for Bryant, on a certain level I agree with you. Many Laker fans and media types act like he is as good as Jordan was. Clearly, he's not. James, Garnett and Duncan are all more valuable, IMO, and you can make a case for Paul, Nowitzki, Howard and some other guys being more valuable as well.

But the idea in some quarters that Bryant is some pathetically overrated pathologically selfish cancerous anti-Christ is badly overblown. As we saw with Michael Jordan, Jason Kidd and Shawn Marion, and as we will see with LeBron James after Boston takes the Cavs out in Round 2, stars complaining about not having enough help or being pissed about how they are used, is nothing new. A few don't--Garnett comes to mind. Bryant should have kept his mouth shut, given how the organization stood by him, but he didn't invent this type of behavior.

But now, Bryant DOES have enough help, and he shares the ball, doesn't ##### etc. After the win against Phoenix on Christmas, in which Bynum kicked the Suns' asses and Ariza played Marion to a draw, triggering the Shaq/Marion deal, Bryant talked about how happy he was and how good the team looked. After the Gasol trade, he complimented the FO, said it was up to the players now etc.

He is one of the best ten players in the league, and he is a durable, talented, tough competitor who can be a real dick when things don't go his way. Nothing more--and nothing less.

if Kobe simply shut up and played, then he'd have an argument for being the best player, and maybe strictly on the court he's the best player.

But... Any team that has Kobe has to deal with the whole package, and some of the things he does is pretty destructive to the team's goal of winning.

But how destructive, really? He held his tongue the previous two seasons, performed at a tremendous level, and got his team to the playoffs. Before this season, he created some massive drama, then the Lakers proceeded to with the Western Conference, with him leading the way despite a torn ligament on the pinkie of his shooting hand that needs surgery.

I agree that Bryant creates his own distractions; I just don't think those distractions are as destructive as people make them out to be.

How that became some kind of model for what would happen in the United States if the US government enforced its own laws in its own country with all necessary force is, one must confess, something of a mystery.

Well I agree.

Also, I doubt any government has ever decided to cut and run after winning a battle against domestic insurgents, because casualties were a bit higher than expected.

Having 100 Rangers get ambushed by 2500 insurgents in Springfield is not quite the same thing as getting ambushed 3500 miles away in a governmentless third world hellhole that doesn't even have any oil.

I'm still not sure what makes Kobe the best player. He's not the most unstoppable, the most dynamic, the most motivational. He's good at everything, and has a tremendous amount of skill, but I really think Lebron and Paul are a good deal better at creating opportunities to score, and KG is better at limiting opponents scoring chances. None of those three are slouches at the opposite end, either, and I would put all 3 of them ahead of Kobe on an MVP ballot. Somebody on TV the other day noted that with a replacement PG, the Hornets are Minnesota, with a replacement PF, the Celtics are Atlanta, and with a replacement SG (much easier to find, by the way), the Lakers may still be a playoff team in the west.

I know his team is up and down, but Lebron is unbelievable. Every game he plays makes me appreciate him more, and I haven't felt that way about any NBA player since Jordan. The only ones to approach it were AI around 2001 and McGrady during his first year in Orlando.

That was a ridiculous, infuriating trade that would have gotten rejected in a fantasy league. I'm getting irritated just thinking about it.

Memphis was well under .500 at the time of the deal, and Gasol, although he is a fine player, is not a franchise player. They got an expiring contract, two #1s and a nice young PG prospect. They don't need Vujacic or Turiaf. I can see the anger, but it was a way to start over as they needed to do.

I was defending the Rangers- the post I was responding to implied that the Rangers were outfought by the Somalis, which was simply not true, they outfought the Somalis

I waws agreeing with you, and bumming your stuff as a jumpoing off point.