.:March 2007:.
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
.:links:.
daily viewing pleasures:
Capitalism Magazine
UnDoubtably Krap
Daily Dilbert Strip
Global Security
Slashdot
Google News
Weather...outside?
The Drudge Report

little blog book:
jubyDOTnet
The Mooch
"Hazel"
Dollars & Crosses
Andrew Sullivan
PseudoPsalms
Sarah's Stuff
Here in Katie's Head
GJ Walberg
Cold Forged
Zach's Random Thoughts
the RANT
miniluv
Delightful Delirium

neither nor:
Homestar Runner
The Intellectual Activist
Page 2 Sports
My Amazon Wish List
Is my Blog HOT or NOT?
Anti-Wil Webring
The Onion

.:Archives:.
March 2007
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002

.:Search:.


.:Other Sundries:.
listed on:

produced with:

the others of the others:


Personal Essays:
Flagship: Democracy
Healthcare in These United States

March 23, 2003
a few valid points

1st point Over the past year and a half. Everybody and their dog has been ripping the U.S. for it's "unilateral" insistence on disarming Iraq. While their intentions may seem reasonable, their anti-war jargon is just plain wrong. Unilateral by it's very defination implies one side. And for the record: Militarily, the action is tri-lateral. Their are officially about 30 countries that support the action. 4 of the 6 largest economies in the world are represented by the coalition of the willing. So, the anti-war crowd should really replace "unilateral" with "not multi-lateral enough for us" in their repertoire. But that would sound nearly as condemning would it?

2nd point Doing a 6-degrees to *insert college basketball team here* in the NCAA tourney has got be the easiest and most pointless investigative task in the history of wit. The tournament has a total of 6 rounds, thus any team in the bracket can be connected to the national champion by virtue of whom beat whom. Just for kicks I'll give you an few examples:

2002: Boston University
Boston lost to Cincinnati (1) who lost to UCLA (2) who then lost to Mizzou (3) who lost to Oklahoma (4) who lost to Indiana (5) who lost to Maryland (6) in the National championship game.

2000: Appalachian State
Appalachian lost to Ohio State(1) who lost to Miami (2) who then lost to Tulsa(3) who lost to North Carolina(4) who lost to Florida(5) who lost to Michigan State(6) in the National championship game.

so there you go, everything else is just gravy

Posted by Kyle at 02:40 AM | Category: Reality Cheque


Comments