Nerdness Abounds

Mrs. X has the privilege of laughing herself silly at my expense over the course of the next few days. Last night was the debut of the new Episode III trailer. Now, I managed to avoid having to watch the OC but a portion of it is on the tape, but that's okay.

The nature of this trailer and the teaser trailer are very similar to that of the Episode I trailers. The teaser was all about minor aspects of Anakin while the main trailer was about the broad storyline in general. As a matter of fact, the way the Episode III trailer was done, it looked like the movie is going to focus more on Palpatine revealing himself as Darth Sidious and proclaiming himself Emperor. Anakin's transformation will be well represented as well as his quest to destroy the Jedi. But the broad scope looks very entertaining.

I've only seen the trailer once so far so I haven't gotten the full analysis. The Force.Net will probably have a detailed break down so I'll take a quick nip over there for some pleasure reading before too long.

Time to Tell You How to Vote

More disturbing whisperings on Capital Hill. George Will just put out a column detailing the new "Count Every Vote Act." The bill is sponsored by Sens. Boxer (D-CA) and Clinton (D-NY) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH). It has a few provisions that I take a little bit of umbridge with. Notably:

* All states will have same day vote registration and voting (similar to Wisconsin)
* The right to regulate elections would be managed by the Federal Government rather than the
individual states
* States would be required to have no-excuse absentee voting and to conform to new federal
standards regarding mandatory recounts, provisional ballots, poll workers, early voting, voter
waiting times and many other matters.
* Convicted felons currently out of prison would be allowed to vote

As someone who believes strongly in the rules of Federalism, these acts give a great deal of pause. My firmest belief is that the individual states should decide matters of public policy in how it relates to them from elections to gay marriage to gun control. What works for the people of Maine does not necessarily work for the people in Arizona.

Someone more steeped in law, like Mrs. X, would probably also be able to point out how allowing convicted felons to vote would violate the 14th amendment. I imagine this act is being pushed as a way to "ensure that every vote is counted" but it opens the door for fraud and further consolidation of government bureaucracy. I think I can effectively stand as a no vote in this matter.

Oscar Opinions

So the Oscars were on last night. Mrs. X walked the carpet show while I did not. But I did come down in time for the opening skit of Chris Rock. Pretty funny. I liked his razzing style although his retread on a couple of jokes, like Cuba Gooding Jr. paying him $80 after Pootie Tang, wasn’t as funny the second time around. Even his cracks at Bush were funny. I only wish he had directly mentioned the Razzie that been awarded to Bush. But I imagine that’s still a taboo subject at the gala. Although Hallie Berry went to pick up her Razzie, making her the second actor to do so, after Tom Greene. So maybe they’ll get the starch out of their shorts. Nahhh.

Mrs. X and I only watched up to the In Memorandum section so we didn’t see the big awards. I was rather surprised when I got up this morning and found out that Million Dollar Baby had won both director and picture. Before the Oscars started, I was thinking that there might be a split between that one and Aviator since they were running neck and neck in the talk. After Aviator kept winning all the technical awards, I thought that it might even take both, but that Martin Scorsecee would surly win the director award. But it didn’t happen. I was glad that Morgan Freeman won Best Supporting Actor. His was recognition for past work as well as this picture, much like Denzel Washington’s Oscar was when he won.

It was rather interesting that all five of the best picture nominees took home at least one Oscar. Aviator took home 5 awards, the biggest being Best Supporting Actress. Million Dollar Baby took home 4, the biggest being Best Picture. Ray took home 2 awards, the biggest for Best Actor. Finding Neverland and Sideways each took home 1 award: Best Score and Best Adapted Screenplay respectively.

So, overall I only lost 4 or 5 picks. But since three of them were Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Song, I don’t think I can claim as good a year as last year. Such is life. But at least we can now focus on the crapfest coming out this year. Honestly, no movie this year even pings my radar until Episode III comes out in May. After that, only Goblet of Fire has made itself known for my interest. We’ll see what else is coming but nothing is registering so far.

A Surviving Apprentice Lost in the West Wing

Okay, so we now have four TV shows to cover for this week.

Lost - Lost was pretty good this week, although it dragged in a few points. The primary focus of this episode was to tell us that Jin is actually a nice guy who is trying to hide aspects of the world from his wife. Now that his wife's English has been exposed, he might be given broader storylines from which to be used as he learns English. Of course, the other two main points were to free up Sun so she can develop a relationship with Michael, and to go ahead and destroy the boat so no one will be leaving anytime soon. That Walt was the one who destroyed the boat was predicted by Mrs. X and lends itself to my theory that Walt has very little objection to using others and his apparent powers to get what he wants. Very dangerous combination. Next week we get Hurley's story and hopefully an explanation of how he does Korean car commercials.

West Wing - One of those confusing episodes that tells you something at the start and doesn't explain it until the end, where you then spend the next 15 minutes sorting out the storyline in your head. This week was also the "please give Richard Schiff the Emmy" episode of the season. While I can say that Toby's storyline was somewhat compelling, the fight was very out of place. Josh acted totally out of character and the fight made very little sense in my and Mrs. X's mind. At least we have this article from MSNBC that indicates that they have signed Martin Sheen for next season and that its still "up in the air" as to whether or not Smits will win. I think they've already made up their mind about Smits, unless Bradley Whitford suddenly decides that he doesn't want to play Josh anymore.

Survivor - After an interesting opening, Mark Burnett is returning to the safe ground and making Survivor 10 just like every other season. I will say that there is a bit of improvement this season in the engagability of the people. Kuror is clearly the favored tribe, with Tom and Ian being set up as people to root for, at least initially. Most of the development on Ulong has been negative with only the tattoo girl getting some positive spin. Mrs. X has read a rumor that Kuror will dominate for a while, losing only one member before going into either a tribal shuffle or a straight on merge. So the negative spin for Kuror may not come until a bit later.

Apprentice - Mrs. X and I were shocked again by Trump's ability to actually fire the person who deserved it this season. Tara just immediately jumped in the wrong direction and pulled the whole team with her. As such, I am forced to make my first amendment to my final four prediction. I was first thinking that it would be Jon, Tara, and Craig from Net Worth and Alex from Magna. Now I have to pull off Tara and maybe Craig as well. We've seen mostly just flying under the radar from him and he will need to make an impact soon to save his skin. I expect Audrey's blowup next week to either bring success or to get her fired. Either way, she's on the hot seat.

TV Update

Sorry about the delay. I’ve been distracted by a project that I’ve been working on mostly over lunch, although I have picked at it during the slow times of the day. I’ve also been restricted from working on it at home as the home PC needs to be completely wiped and reconstructed from scratch.

Anyway, West Wing was better than I thought it was going to be, although it was almost mundanely predictable. But there was enough humor in the situation to salvage it. Mrs. X and I miss the other cast members though and are looking forward to the WWE match up between Josh and Toby. Josh is younger but Toby seems to have more inner strength so I really don’t know who is going to win in the fight.

Lost was much better than I was expecting. ABC had billed the episode as the romantic triangle coming to a head. But it turned out to be more exploring of the character of Sawyer. The fleshing out of his character has helped him to a degree in my mind. He is no longer just the 2-D bad apple that stands in opposition to the triumvirate and tries to hit on Kate. Instead, he is moving in the direction of an anti-hero. A dark, miserable character that will do the things that the group cannot necessarily do and maintain their “good” status.

Mrs. X was a little confused as to who the man was that Sawyer shot, so I had to explain that the contact at the beginning of the episode (T-1000 from T2) invented the link from the man as the original Sawyer in order to turn our Sawyer into a hit man, without him knowing it. A slightly confusing premise, but understandable in the right light. I also liked the contact with the Doc’s dad who convinced Sawyer to go ahead and put himself deeper in the pit. The irony was particularly enjoyable at the end with the idea that the Red Sox never winning the series was the equivalent to fighting fate, given that they had just won the series.

Ezekiel Thoughts

Working on research can give your mind a great turn here and there. I was thinking of something on Saturday that turned my attention to the prophesy of Ezekiel 38 and 39. For those of you not readily familiar with this one, it’s a prophesy of a coming war in which several nations will attack Israel by surprise, but be defeated by supernatural power.

This particular passage has been one that has displayed the politics of the times with ready abandon. Prior to the reestablishment of Israel, many interpretations were such that Israel was a figurative representation of either the Jewish remnant or the Church. Then, after 1948, people began to play with all sorts of different nations as the attackers. The Soviet Union was a favorite choice for quite a long time.

So lets look at who is involved. The easy ones are the later nations mentioned: Persia, Cush, and Put. Persia is Iran, Cush is the land south of Egypt and is now the country of Sudan, although Cush has occasionally been used as a reference to just black Africa, but I’m leaning a little more towards just Sudan in general. Put is the old name for Libya. The other countries are a little more difficult.

The alliance under Gog is Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, and Beth Togarmah. All of these countries are to the north in the area surrounding the Black Sea. Turkey controls almost all of it, although there are parts that extend around the Black Sea and into Chechnya. The confusion comes about when people wonder if it was just referring to the land or the people in the land. Magog was the land that was under the domination of the people whom the Greeks called Scythians and had settled to the north of Lydia. These later involved into one of the dominant peoples of Russia. Gomer in turn was the land controlled by the Cimmerians, in western Turkey who migrated north and turned into the Germanic peoples. I myself, favor the actual land rather than the peoples. My interpretation is of course colored by the times and this article, but I envision a pan-Islamic assault on Israel. Now, Russia may be behind the scenes in support but I think of the active participants, a jihad makes the most sense.

Probably just as interesting is the nations who are not mentioned in Ezekiel’s prophesy. The three notables are: Babylon, Egypt, and Aram. Babylon would be representative of Iraq and possibly Jordan, Egypt is Egypt and Aram is Syria. Of all the countries, Syria is the most puzzling due to its longstanding hatred of Israel and its open commitment to its destruction. One of the primary theories to explain Syria’s absence from the invasion is the prophesy in Isaiah 17. In this passage, it is prophesied that Damascus will be completely destroyed and never rebuilt. Damascus was in fact briefly destroyed by the Assyrians not long after Isaiah made his prophesy, but it was quickly rebuilt and currently enjoys the designation as the oldest inhabited city in the world, going back over 4000 years and maybe longer. So, sometime before the overall attack, I would expect to see Syria overrun and Damascus destroyed. Given the current climate, I wouldn’t be at all surprised by a joint Israeli-American assault on the country. There are already whisperings about how Syria and not Iran is the big target on the list next. Jordan and Egypt all have nominal peace treaties with Israel and I would suspect that Iraq might go ahead and sign one as well, especially after some sort of resolution is reached with the Palestinians, leading to the dismantling of the security wall.

A later notable of the prophecy is that after God destroys the invading armies, the Israelites take the weapons and use them as fuel for seven years. Part of this is to convey the magnitude of the loss of the invaders, but then you couple this with the later part of the prophecy which states that men will regularly employed in clearing the land, that it will take seven months to bury the dead and then a special system has to be employed if anyone finds human remains in the area. To me, this sounds a great deal like the procedures used in nuclear waste removal. Given this, coupled with the known research activities of Iran, I would not be surprised if the invaders attempted to use nuclear weapons in the assault.

Of course, everyone has their own theories, but this is where my mind wandered on Saturday.

Happy Birthday Shout Out

Happy 24th Birthday to my sister: Mrs. S. I hope your husband has good plans for you. Birthday and Valentine's all rolled into one weekend :)

TV Commentary

My apologies for not writing sooner but I was a bit under the weather on Wednesday and then had to play catch up on Thursday.

First, the finale to TAR. I was rooting for Chris and John but I have no qualms about Freddie and Kendra winning. My only real complaint is that we never saw some of Kendra’s better side. We got a lot of complaining about how poor and dirty things were. The comments she made about how the poor Senegalese kept breeding was particularly obnoxious. But they were good competitors and they were my second choice among the final 4. Hayden kept annoying me and I was glad when she got put out of her misery in the second to last leg. I also never really felt that Adam and Rebecca ever earned their place in the final 3. They came in last in all three of the final three legs. The first was a non-elimination leg, the second they benefited from the penalty to Hayden and Aaron, and the third was the end of the race.

Overall, a good season. We had our main villains eliminated in 6th place so it was just sort of a pick as you go after that. Next season I have mixed emotions on. Boston Rob and Lamber from Survivor are going to be on it; that means that we’ll get a heavy dose of editing in their direction. We’ll also have to hear Rob talking about how smart he is and how everyone is against them because they already won 1.1 million dollars. Still, maybe it won’t be as bad as I think and I’ll enjoy it as much as other seasons.

Now, to Lost. I didn’t care much for the back-story of Charlie actually liking this girl while he’s still doped up, but the rest of the story was good. I was also glad that someone had the good sense to just shoot Ethan dead before he could do any more damage. In action and suspense movies, you always see how the good guys take the bad guy prisoner and he ends up causing so much more havoc that you would have just been better of killing him in the beginning. Any good plot person would have told you that if Charlie hadn’t killed him, Ethan would have been taken back, resisted talking for a while and then broke free, probably killing someone in the process. You just don’t take prisoner a guy that has killed one person, tried to kill another and kidnapped a third member of your party.

Mrs. X has raised a bone of contention with the show as well in that it’s very sexist. There are no females in the triumvirate (Doc, Locke, and Sayid) and when they do branch out their discussions, it’s only to various male members of the cast: Michael, Charlie, Hurley, and occasionally Sawyer. Kate has to force her way in and is still stepping back into the role of the other women: growing produce and overseeing the camp. I’m hoping that when the Korean woman’s secret is exposed, she will become a stronger character. I sense a stronger role for her that is being held back by her husband.

Next week looks to play into the love triangle so that will be a bit of a bland episode as far as advancing the overall plot.

Speaking of bland episodes, the next on of West Wing looks to be an absolute stinker. Jimmy Smits is on the brink of ruin with his candidacy and has to appeal to the public to resurrect him. It will be predictable, formulaic and very “Up with the people.” So, don’t expect much for West Wing next week.

Patriot Shoots Eagle: Pats win Super Bowl

For those of you lost by my title, that's a nod to the mascot vs. mascot battle. The Patriot would shoot and Eagle with his gun so of course the Patriots would win. Doesn't always work, but it makes for amusing battles. Anyway, I can pat myself on the back for correctly predicting the winner, although I never got around to posting it here. Actually, I have to say that I thought the Patriots would beat the Eagles more soundly. As it was, Philadelphia could have won that game. If McNabb hadn’t thrown that second interception after his first was negated by a penalty, the Eagles would have at least gotten 3 points. If the rest of the game proceeds normally, the Eagles tie it up with that long pass late in the 4th. Now, Brady probably would have led the Pats downfield and Adam Vinetari would have kicked the game winner just like the last two Super Bowls. But, there is a chance that the Eagles defense could have stopped them. It’s hard to say. I truly believe that unless the Eagles had jumped up by 14 points, the Patriots would have found a way to win the game. Their screen passes were mauling the Eagles and the defense was just worn out. So lets raise a glass to New England and enjoy the football off-season.

Now, as far as the commercials go, this was a pretty sucky year. Budweiser had a couple of good one, although the skydiver one is a recycled one I think. The two that have generated the most buzz around the office were the two Ameriquest commercials: the convenience store “robbery” and the cat “slaying.” I also was partial to the Fed Ex 10 rules of Super Bowl commercials. This was made even funnier by the fact that immediately following it was a Diet Pepsi commercial that used 5 of the rules. The rules, for anyone that missed it, are:
1) Celebrity appearance
2) Animal appearance
3) Animal acting like human
4) Groin kick
5) Talking animal
6) Smart mouth kid
7) Hot woman/hot man
8) Product labeling (optional)
9) Something that eludes me at the moment
10) Additional joke at the end

For the record, the Diet Pepsi ad (hot guy walking down street) used celebrity appearance, animal appearance, hot woman/hot man, product labeling, and additional joke at end.
But, for the most part, the commercials stunk. There was very little imagination and certainly nothing overly amusing or edgy. Part of the problem is that the cost is becoming so high for a spot that no one will go longer than 30 seconds and that limits creativity. Several years ago, Mountain Dew had a very good add that was a take off of Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody. It was imaginative and fun. Nothing like that could be found last night. So we must suffer through more and hope that advertisers will learn from this year and come back with something better next year.

Social Security Thoughts

With the attention given to Social Security in Mr. Bush's speech last night, I found many posts arguing about it. The following is a list of comments that I tend to agree with regarding the program. Most of the comments come from here. I've sanitized it to remove names of people and clean up some of the insulting language used by certain, less than mature people.

1) Bottom line–it is theft. The government is stealing my money. It IS my money. I go to work everyday and I earn it. I love you Mom, but it is not your money and it is not the government’s money. It is my money. You raised me to be a hard worker but if you had told me so it was so the government could steal from me maybe I would have considered other options. I could have been a crack whore-liberals would claim it was because I was downtrodden and I would have had a free ride for life. Or, I could have become a housewife with a pile of kiddies-conservatives would say I was doing my wifely duty and given me lots of nice tax cuts like the Child Income Credit. As it is I am paying for the welfare Moms, the soccer Moms, the Viagra needing lecherous old men, and I am staring down the barrel at having to fund the bingo and golf money for the enormous Baby Boomer generation–give me a break, can I please keep something for me??

2) Fascinating debate. My position is a simple one. Republicans say it’s your money and your responsibility. Invest wisely or suffer the consequences. Democrats say you can’t be trusted with your money, give it to the government and the nanny state will do what is best for you. Hmm, tough choice, eh?

3) Argument: And just where are younger people supposed to get all of this money to put in non-SS 401k’s and other such private retirement accounts? In 2018 the outflows overwhelm the inflows for SS. Then the Government must use the "SS Trust Fund.” The government MUST either:
· Cut spending and run a perpetual surplus (impossible AND is using MY income tax money to give to older generations who used that revenue to lower their past income tax rates/spend more)
· Raise FICA taxes on my (and future) generations AGAIN (started out at 4% for the LOTTERY WINNERS but don’t seem to be quite that low any more)
· Raise MY income taxes to make up the shortfall
· Borrow more money and add it to the national debt (and by doing that use up more of my income tax money to pay debt service so fewer services for me and also make interest rates rise and increase the costs of public and PRIVATE borrowing.)

Seems to me that any way the pie gets sliced all I end up with is the bill. In addition, that only "works” until 2041 when the fictitious "trust fund” runs out.

So we in the future are facing: massive cuts in OUR available government services, higher interest rates, MUCH higher income AND FICA taxes, and working MUCH longer since we will have far less take home pay and no way to have thousands let alone pennies to throw into a 401k.

Raise the retirement age to the average age of death NOW and index it to life expectancy. Everyone who is already collecting SS made out like a bandit and spread the rest of the pain FAIRLY to the rest of us. People have been shouting about the coming SS implosion for DECADES!We future generations owe you NOTHING! Voting yourselves largesse out of the Treasury and giving future generations the bill is not a "generational social contract” it is THEFT! If you and people like you continue on with the charade that Social Security is fine and dandy and needs no reform, NOTHING is exactly what you are going to get! When every working man and woman in this country is paying 80 to 90% tax rates so you can get far more out of SS that you ever paid in you better believe that we are going to cut you off! You have absolutely zero sympathy for our future plight and we will have zero sympathy for yours when you are living in the street because you tried to do it to us first.

Rebuttal: I agree with you that SS is broken and in need of a radical fix. Still, you can’t blame us boomers for a system that was created in the 1930s. We (well, not me but most of my generation) have been paying into this crappy system for 30 years, based on a promise made by Uncle Sam. Whatever money we get back will be less than our investment unless we live to be well into our 80s. Had that money been put into a mutual fund with a 12% return we wouldn’t be facing this issue. So, let’s find a way to get you people out of the system while keeping the promise made to the oldsters. It is not our fault that we are in this situation, and we are not asking for anything more than we were promised, and have even acknowledged we will have to settle for less, but not 60% less.

4) We pay to fix it now, or we pay triple to fix it later. Are private accounts critical to the fix? No. We could raise the age limit, cut benefits or tax the crap out of our kids, all unacceptable in my opinion. The only way to go are the accounts. Take any 30 year snapshot of market performance - from any starting point – You’ll see that the market beat the pants off of the current SS growth rate.

These are just a sampling. I do think the system either needs to be majorly reformed or just killed off. But, as that won't be allowed to happen, I'm leaning in favor of the private accounts myself. I'm sure we'll get more information and vitrol later.

Red News Vs. Blue News

We have seen the enemy and it is Eric Alterman. I’m a great fan of Glen Reynolds and his primary site: Instapundit. He’s a fairly conservative blogger (more libertarian than republican) but he gets around and reads liberal as well as conservative sites. Most he has a measured amount of respect for to go along with general disagreement. That does not seem to be the case for Mr. Alterman.

Mr. Alterman has a blog hosted by MSNBC and has made several appearances on the talk shows representing the liberal viewpoint. Apparently a couple of days ago, he was on a show with Jeff Jarvis, a more conservative blogger. The two of them had a polite catfight as we might expect but the thing that really seemed to burrow under the skin of Mr. Jarvis and others is Mr. Alterman’s continued allegations that blogs written by Iraqis that support the American presence and elections are actually being run by CIA operatives.

This was something that popped up a couple of weeks ago in a style section column written by a NY Times reporter, Sarah Boxer, on the blog Iraq the Model. Most of the outrage seems to stem from two sources: general irritation that maybe some Iraqis actually believe that we are doing good things over there and its not all the chaos that its portrayed to be, and that pushing rumors that these men are CIA agents could make them targets of insurgents and get them killed. Another aspect that seemed to get the dander up of the blogosphere is the casualness of talking about these men in comparison to the flak that went up when the name of a CIA employee wife of government diplomat was exposed during the yellow cake investigations last year. The comparison they made was that if these bloggers are CIA agents, then the NY Times and Mr. Alterman are exposing them with the same disregard that they accused the Bush administration of doing. If the bloggers are not CIA agents, then the NY Times and Mr. Alterman are pushing a story that is not true and challenges their credibility in journalism. Either way, it’s being seen as a gross irresponsibility.

Mrs. X and I routinely make fun of Fox News for its "unbiased newscoverage" but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that there are a lot of problems for members of the other side of the aisle and other outlets of the mainstream media. This, of course, is why I read the blogs that I do. Maybe sometime soon we can all agree that there is no such thing as impartial news and just have everyone pick their flavor of choice.

Bunching Annoyances

Mrs. X has been complaining about the bunching aspect of The Amazing Race this season and for the first time, I really agree with her. In this particular episode, the teams bunched up so many times that the team that was eliminated was just because they made one little mistake at the end. But aside from that, you should never have an instance of having three teams check in at the same time when there are only five teams left. Realistically, Adam and Rebecca should have been eliminated, or there should have been some other way of spacing out the teams by the detour after extra bunching. But instead, we had it come down to the wrestlers falling behind because Lori left her ticket at the base. It was an unsatisfying episode in my opinion.

Next week it appears to me that they are going to Singapore and I don’t think it’ll matter who finishes last because it will be the last non-elimination leg of the race. I don’t know how the deck will be stacked for the final run, but I expect Adam and Rebecca to finally get eliminated at final four unless one of the other teams makes a major boneheaded mistake. After that, it’s a complete toss up as to wins. Both Freddie and Kendra and Hayden and Aaron are a bit dysfunctional, but they’ve been able to avoid mistakes in certain legs of the race. I think the stress of the race is finally starting to get to Chris and Jon (more Jon than Chris), but they might be able to hold it together to win the race. They’ve been a bit underdeveloped in terms of character, but I think that’s mostly due to a lack of dysfunction between them. With so many other teams giving you high drama by infighting, it doesn’t leave you with as much time to develop a team that’s not fighting with itself. Whether that leads to a situation like the Goats of season 4 found themselves in, I don’t know. But I think they won’t make a mistake like that.

So I guess I’m still picking Chris and Jon to win with Hayden and Aaron second and Freddie and Kendra third. But all of those teams could easily displace one another with their style of play.

John Adams Vs. Ben Franklin

So, the Super Bowl is set. This may actually be one of the first times that the teams expected to go to the Super Bowl at the beginning of the season are actually going. Usually you get one team playing the spoiler but they weren’t strong enough this year. Pittsburgh came close. I think at the beginning of the season, they were expected to vie with Cleveland for the worst position in the AFC North. On the other side, you had Atlanta. Philly was supposed to meet either Carolina or Seattle in the NFC Championship according to all the early predictions. But, that didn’t happen. Carolina collapsed under the weight of injury and Atlanta took advantage.

So who is going to win? Most people will tell you that you would have to be a fool not to take New England. This has been the absolute worst year for the NFC and most analysts would have taken the top 4 seeds in the AFC against anyone from the NFC. Am I going to buck that trend? Not unless I hear something different in terms of health over the next two weeks. For all the love people give to Brian Westbrook, Philly still does not have an adequate running game in my mind. Their receivers should do well against the New England makeshift secondary, but that’s dependant on McNabb being able to stay out of pressure. The one part of New England that is not hurt is the defensive line. I think McNabb will be scrambling all over the place and that will impair his ability to throw deep. Philly will keep New England from scoring a great deal, but the Pats will get some scores in there. Brady is not as jittery as Michael Vick was and he’ll have a greater ability to get rid of the ball in pressure situations when necessary.

Bottom line, I think New England gets the win by about a touchdown, making it the first time New England doesn’t have to rely on the leg of Adam Vinetari to give them the Lombardi trophy.

Lost and Sphere

So, who’s read Sphere? For those of you who haven’t, we got a taste of it last night on Lost. In Sphere, a group of investigators discover an alien sphere that gives those who enter it the power to make their thoughts into reality. I would recommend the book long before anyone sees the movie.

Anyway, it would seem that Walt has a similar power on Lost: the ability to make certain thoughts into reality. On two occasions we’ve seen Walt read a comic book concerning a polar bear and had a polar bear appear. He wanted his stepfather to look at him so he contrived a bird that he was looking at to crash into a window, forcing his stepfather to look in his direction. He also wanted his father to help him when he was in trouble and he appeared with Locke.

Locke also seems to be the only person who recognizes this particular power. In fact, I’d say that Locke’s primary role is for everyone to realize his or her full potential. He helped the doctor realize his role as the leader, he helped Boone free himself from his lust for his stepsister and he is helping Walt realize what he is capable of. We’ve also seen him as the arbiter of choice in helping Charlie to kick his drug habit, giving the philosophical lecture to Walt concerning backgammon and choice, and appearing as the face of choice in Claire’s dream. What else he will demonstrate I’m not sure yet. According to the dictionary, John Locke was a British philosopher who believed that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience, i.e. theory is useless and you can only learn by doing. The classic example is that you read as many books as you want about how to ride a bicycle, but you won’t be able to ride until you actually conduct trial and error. This fits with Locke’s character in that he is forcing everyone to immerse him or herself in experience to learn about themselves. The irony is that everything Locke knows about nature and survival must have come from books and learning as he could not have experienced them from his wheelchair.

Last night’s episode was the second turn the producers have made into the sci-fi realm. I personally, think they should have played out Walt’s abilities a little bit more. A red herring would have been good to throw in there to make people guess more. But we shall have to see what they do with Walt’s ability in the future. Its going to be hard to explain why they just don’t have Walt imagine them being rescued and have the whole thing done with. But that’s a question for another day.

TAR Vengeance

And there was much rejoicing. John and Victoria were finally eliminated last night, ending their nightmarish run on TAR. I actually expected them to find a way to pull things out, simply because there is always a team that you end up hating that makes it to the final three. But we were rewarded here.

While, I don’t like aspects of other teams, I don’t hate them with the kind of passion that I reserved for John. Kendra is the classic ignorant American and looks like a complete ass whenever she makes any comments on local culture. Hayden can be a bit of a whiny bitch when she gets stressed. Lori doesn’t think and Adam is a whiny baby. But they have their quirks that can be worked out and salvaged.

I think Adam and Rebecca will go next unless some other team makes a big mistake. Their communication skills are taking a major nosedive and they’ll also have at least one team specifically gunning for them. Lori and Bolo may go out at final 4 depending on what kind of mistakes they make. But, if we follow the patter of favorite team finishing final 4, then we need to go to the long distance daters. They have been slipping a little bit in the competition. I suspect fatigue is finally starting to take its toll and they aren’t thinking as well as they used to. They’ve also had a slight run of bad luck. But since we’ve lost the hated team earlier than expected, maybe we’ll break the team we like at final 4 curse.
I couldn’t tell where they were going in the next episode. I suspect they may stay in Africa for a brief bit and then make their way towards South-East Asia. Someplace around the Philippines is my guess.

A Soldier's Perspective

There is an old adage that goes that the war is lost when the soldiers believe it is lost. The mainstream media would have us believe that just about any war since 1970 is a lost cause, including our current engagement in Iraq. However, I've read something by a soldier in Iraq that makes me think that if they were given the opportunity, the soldiers would shred the mainstream media long before they attacked the government:

Aiding and Abetting the Enemy: the Media in Iraq

By LTC Tim Ryan, CO, 2/12 Cav, 1st Cav Div

What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True -- yes, accurate -- yes, but in context with the greater good taking place -- no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

I just read yet another distorted and grossly exaggerated story from a major news organization about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the events in Iraq and more often than not, the events they cover are only the bad ones. Many of the journalists making public assessments about the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international public support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. War is a terrible thing and terrible things happen during wars, even when you are winning. In war, as in any contest of wills with capable opponents, things do not always go as planned; the guys with the white hats don't always come out on top in each engagement. That doesn't mean you are losing. Sure, there are some high profile and very spectacular enemy attacks taking place in Iraq these days, but the great majority of what is happening in Iraq is positive. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlight mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?
As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has already exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country. Just yesterday, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. From where I sit in my command post at Camp Fallujah, Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets in the city. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. Right now, as elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year. The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80% from late October -- before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the media not show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled in streets of Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who now is being tried in the world press. Is this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the CARE worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where they get their information now? Well, if you go to the Internet, you'll find a web link from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home page. Very interesting.

The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

Reality couldn't have been farther from the truth. What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia -- Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's "political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.

Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these atrocities happened. It's little wonder that many people here want us out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance -- they never see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over?

So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media the other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some outfits are better than others, the Army and other military organizations today understand the importance of getting out the story -- the whole story -- and trains leaders to talk to the press. There is a saying about media and the military that goes: "The only way the media is going to tell a good story is if you give them one to tell." This doesn't always work as planned. Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the events for something they were not and then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN recently aired a "special report" in which the cable network accused the military of lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah operation. The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine public affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the main attack on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical "feints" designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then planned to take place weeks later.

Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn't start for several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a tool for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers from the military and the administration on the matter. The reality appears to be that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and others took the information they were given and turned it into what they wanted it to be. Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.
CNN and others say they were duped by the military in this and other cases. Yet, they never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact that the enemy manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of envy. You can bet that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqarwi has his own version of a public affairs officer and it is evident that he uses him to great effect. Each time Zarquari's group executes a terrorist act such as a beheading or a car bomb, they have a prepared statement ready to post on their website and feed to the press. Over-eager reporters take the bait, hook, line and sinker, and report it just as they got it.

Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just what the terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a victory for them. Those who have read the ancient Chinese military theorist and army general Sun Tsu will recall the philosophy of "Kill one, scare ten thousand" as the basic theory behind the strategy of terrorism. Through fear, the terrorist can then manipulate the behavior of the masses. The media allows the terrorist to use relatively small but spectacular events that directly affect very few, and spread them around the world to scare millions. What about the thousands of things that go right every day and are never reported? Complete a multi-million-dollar sewer project and no one wants to cover it, but let one car bomb go off and it makes headlines. With each headline, the enemy scores another point and the good-guys lose one. This method of scoring slowly is eroding domestic and international support while fueling the enemy's cause.

I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms -- how convenient.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave Manhattan.

Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It seems that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their unqualified opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and followers.So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"? The fact is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual accounts have little or no experience or education in counter-insurgency operations or in nation-building to support their assessments. How would they really know if things are going well or not? War is an ugly thing with many unexpected twists and turns. Who among them is qualified to say if this one is worse than any other at this point? What would they have said in early 1942 about our chances of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause too? How much have these "experts" studied warfare and counter-insurgencies in particular? Have they ever read Roger Trinquier's treatise Modern Warfare: A French View on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is one of the few French military guys who got it right. The Algerian insurgency of the 1950s and the Iraq insurgency have many similarities. What about Napoleon's campaigns in Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a lot of similarities to this campaign. Have they studied that and contrasted the strategies? Or, have they even read Mao Zedung's theories on insurgencies, or Nygen Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they seen any of Sun Zsu's work lately? Who are these guys? It's time to start studying, folks. If a journalist doesn't recognize the names on this list, he or she probably isn't qualified to assess the state of this or any other campaign's progress.

Worse yet, why in the world would they seek opinion from someone who probably knows even less than they do about the state of affairs in Iraq? It sells commercials, I suppose. But, I find it amazing that some people are more apt to listen to a movie star's or rock singer's view on how we should prosecute world affairs than to someone whose profession it is to know how these things should go. I play the guitar, but Bruce Springsteen doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be subjected to his views on the validity of the war? By profession, he's a guitar player. Someone remind me what it is that makes Sean Penn an expert on anything. It seems that anyone who has a dissenting view is first to get in front of the camera. I'm all for freedom of speech, but let's talk about things we know. Otherwise, television news soon could have about as much credibility as "The Batchelor" has for showing us truly loving couples.

Also bothersome are references by "experts" on how "long" this war is taking. I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product -- cheap, fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully so. Creating a democracy in Iraq not only will require a change in the political system, but the economic system as well. Study of examples of similar socio-economic changes that took place in countries like Chile, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia and other countries with oppressive Socialist dictatorships shows that it took seven to ten years to move those countries to where they are now. There are many lessons to be learned from these transformations, the most important of which is that change doesn't come easily, even without an insurgency going on. Maybe the experts should take a look at all of the work that has gone into stabilizing Bosnia-Herzegovina over the last 10 years. We are just at the eighteen-month mark in Iraq, a place far more oppressive than Bosnia ever was. If previous examples are any comparison, there will be no quick solutions here, but that should be no surprise to an analyst who has done his or her homework.

This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest influence over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which a relatively small event can be magnified to international proportions, and the enemy is exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day. In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news. People believe what they see, and what people of the world see almost on a daily basis is negative. How could they see it any other way? These images and stories, out of scale and context to the greater good going on over here, are just the sort of thing the terrorists are looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes strengthens his resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American image abroad that suffers in the end.

Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.

TV Spectrum

Lost just went through its first "dream episode." In general, these can be fun episodes because you can do all sorts of crazy things, including killing off major characters. In this one we were treated to the very uncomfortable revelation that Boone and Shannon are step-brother and sister and that neither are very nice people. Boone wants to get busy with Shannon and she uses people to get things that we want, yet plays the nice girl exterior. I can't say how happy I was when I thought she was dead and then unhappy when I realized that it had been a halucination. In hindsight, you look back and say to yourself that Locke would never have been able to abduct Shannon and tie her up like that without someone else noticing. But when you get caught up in the moment, you forget things like that.

Locke is revealing a dark side to his character as well. I don't know why he wants to be so secretive about the hatch, but I suspect that he knows something that he's not telling. I think there is also something relating to the compass that will come back. It seems too dismissive to say that the compass is broken and not deal with it anymore. Mrs. X thinks that Locke is going to be more relevant in the forming of some sort of government with the survivors (like his namesake), but I'm not sold on that yet. Too many paths are open to really get any proper guesswork down. Next week should bring us Michael and Walt's backstory and a little bit of further insight into their characters.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have The West Wing which was starting to recover a bit from last season and then took a bad nose dive. Last night's plot was one of the worst for the season as it focused entirely on Josh and Santos, giving us no aspects of funny or interest. Josh is best when he's a foil and not necessarily the best for crafting a huge story around. I'm also afraid that with all of this attention focused around Santos that we're going to get a carbon copy of Bartlett with less interesting characters. You have a strong character in Alan Alda's senator who will run against the dark horse who got in only to raise issues. The race will be close but Santos will prevail in a narrow election and Josh will stay on the show with him taking over Leo's job. Then there's also the pulling out of every ER trick to try and drive storyline. West Wing is going back onto death watch.

Houses and Politics

With political season over for now, I must apologize for my lack of posting. Its easy to get distracted by other projects when you aren't feeling a strong urge to yell out about things. So I will try to do better here in the coming months.

I've actually got a project that I'm working on now and I'll make periodic updates to. I'm at a bit of an impasse now so I'll wait until I've resolved something that's been bugging me before I fully update everyone.

As you might have guessed from reading Mrs. X's blog, we're in the process of moving into a house. We had a little setback this weekend as we found that the downstairs bathroom pipe accidentally had a nail put into it, causing water to leak everywhere. They fixed the pipe and are now replacing the flooring for the bathroom, laundry room, and hall which got saturated. They should have it done by the time we move in this weekend and then we can just forget the whole incident.

And just for you old-timers, I leave you with this little bit of political news/gossip. It appears that the former campaign manager for Senator Clinton's 2000 run is being charged with fraud. It seems he underreported a fundraising gala and was able to keep nearly $300,000 in the campaign coffers illegally. No one knows if Mrs. Clinton had any knowledge of the incident, but it is exactly the type of thing she wants to avoid as she begins to get things in motion for her 2006 reelection campaign. Stay tuned.

Differences

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Hillary Clinton

Interesting platform for an election run.

For Want of a Nail

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost
For want of a horse, the rider was lost
For want of a rider, the battle was lost
For want of a battle, the war was lost
For want of a war, the nation was lost

I’m not sure who actually penned this little saying but I know that Ben Franklin printed it in Poor Richard’s Almanac. Its used for the title of a book that I’m currently reading called For Want of a Nail. The book is written as a 200 year history of the North American continent assuming that General Johnny Burgoyne defeated the Americans under General Gates at the battle of Saratoga.

In 1777, the British launched a two-pronged attack along the Hudson River with the intent of cutting New England off from the rest of the colonies. Burgoyne’s force was coming from Canada and met an American army under General Gates and General Arnold. The Americans not only beat Burgoyne in a pitched battle, but because of the inability to retreat, he was forced to surrender completely. It was the only good news that came that year as Washington was pushed back from Philadelphia and the city was captured.

In the book, Burgoyne manages to defeat the American force, aided by reinforcements that arrived from the south and proceeds to capture Albany. With the loss of Philadelphia, the more moderate faction of Congress enters into negotiations with the British and a formal reconciliation is hammered out in 1778. In the book, the British give fairly generous terms and only end up executing a few major players in the war: Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Richard H. Lee, and Patrick Henry. Washington is convicted but sentenced to a prison colony.

The book then takes an interesting twist with the flight of some of the second tier founding fathers. Under Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Gen. Nathaniel Greene, a group of settlers flee, to what for us would be Texas, and found a new nation called Jefferson. Back in the colonies, the territory is reorganized with a certain level of autonomous rule under British supervision and renamed the Confederation of North America (C.N.A.)

Currently I’m in the mid 19th century where the C.N.A. has just reorganized under a strong central government (very much like Canada now) with Gen. Winfield Scott elected as Governor-General (essentially the Prime Minister). Meanwhile the country of Jefferson has grown to include all the territory from the Rio Grande to within 50 miles of the Mississippi. The chapter I’m on now jumps back in time to the early part of the 19th century and will lay the foundation for the consolidation of Jefferson with the struggling republic of Mexico to form the United States of Mexico (U.S.M.).

For the most part it’s fairly believable. I question some small aspects of the development, including the economic factors that lead to the abolition of slavery in the C.N.A. But it reads well and is fairly entertaining. My only real complaint about the book is the authors annoying lack of maps. There is one broad map at the beginning of the book but no smaller maps that would help you determine where certain cities are. Obviously I know where all the old cities are, but as new cities spring up, it’s hard to determine where certain cities are. For example, the author mentions the city of Michigan City several times, which I think is somewhere in either the location of Cleveland or Toledo, but I can’t be sure and there is no map to give me a better idea where it is. But other than that I think it’s quite well done.

Probably the most interesting aspect is the constant use of footnotes, referencing books that don’t exist. It really gives it the flavor of a true history of a world that we might have experienced in some other reality. I’m not done, but from what I’ve read, I would highly recommend it.