Down 3-1 to the Pacers, the Knicks miss Jeremy Lin

The Knicks are down 3-1 and on the brink of elimination against the 6th-seeded Pacers in the 2nd round of the play-offs. I left this comment on Knickerblogger.net's post-game report after Jeremy Lin's successful return to MSG on Dec 17:

For old times sake and because this is the last time I’ll be able to do this (unless the Knicks meet the Rockets in the Finals this year), here’s my take on why the Knicks should have kept Lin:

Lin or Felton is a wash in the regular season. Felton is a tough solid pro at PG. Lin is more talented, but less experienced with more to learn. However, Felton lacks Lin’s extra gear and intuitive feel for the game. That difference won’t matter much in the regular season, but it will matter as the Knicks advance in the play-offs and eventually face a top contender, likely for the 1st time in the 2nd round. At that point, the Knicks will finally miss Lin’s mix of versatility, energy, playmaking, high basketball IQ, big-moment clutchness, and creative isolation scoring. While Lin is still developing his point-specific skills, which are sufficiently effective as is, Lin’s game as a do-everything playmaking SG/PG combo guard is mature. His penchant for the spectacular can’t be taught. Winning in the play-offs requires multiple creative isolation scorers, ball movement, and a knack for clutch plays – Lin would have provided the Knicks all three attributes.

The Knicks will likely bow out in a valiantly contested close series against a top contender, 2nd round, maybe conference finals. It will be a successful season. But there will also be a nagging feeling that if the Knicks had just had an extra special something, whether it showed up in key spots as a rebound, steal, extra hustle possession, transition play, or score off a broken play, just something, maybe the series would have gone differently. But all the players gave it their all and played respectably. That extra special something just wasn’t there. Felton will have given his all; no complaints. The notion that Lin would have provided the extra special something to put the Knicks over the top and possibly into the Finals will be too attenuated by then to consider seriously. But he would have.

I argued more in depth that the Knicks would miss Lin in the play-offs at Knickerblogger.net here and here last summer.

The Knicks' starting PG role - where Lin would have been the primary ball-handler and facilitator, played with complementary teammates (Lin/Anthony G/F combo, Lin/Kidd backcourt, Lin/Chandler pick and roll, Lin/Shumpert, Lin/Novak, Lin/Smith, etc.), and for a fan base that adored him, and a supportive coach and organization that knew him - was tailor-made for Lin. At the same time, the Knicks needed Lin's playmaking ability and versatility to balance their clumsy fitting parts, not as much for the regular season as against the top contenders deep in the play-offs. Both Lin and the Knicks lost a special relationship when the Rockets outbid the Knicks for Lin.

My prediction has come to pass that the Knicks need more from their PGs against a tough play-off opponent in the 2nd round or conference finals, and indeed, the Knicks could have used Lin's qualities. Felton simply lacks the extra gear that Lin has and the Knicks need. Due to his poor showing against the Thunder in the 1st round, however, I can't go on Knicks fansites and gloat an 'I told you so' that Lin would have made the difference. Plus, although the Knicks need the backcourt boost Lin would have provided, they also need frontcourt and bench help against the bigger, younger, tougher, more balanced Pacers. The deficit is large enough where it's not obvious that even Linsanity would push the Knicks over the Pacers. The series would be a lot closer, though.

Oh well. I'll just leave my prognostication as it lies on my blog.

May 18, 2013: Knicks lost Game 6 to the Pacers with 8 points combined from PGs Felton, Kidd, and Prigioni. The Knicks needed a quick guard to score, break down the defense, and make plays. In other words, they needed Lin.

May 21, 2013: Sportige article New York Knicks – Jeremy Lin Style of Basketball is Better Than Building Around Carmelo Anthony is pretty good, but errs by hewing to the Lin *or* Anthony premise. The author also weakens his position by applying Lin's regular season highlights to the 2nd round of the play-offs. The regular season and play-offs are different animals. If Lin had performed better in the 1st round, then an apples-to-apples comparison could be made.

The author should have focused instead on player type and play-off winning formulas. The Knicks need Anthony to contend, but they needed Lin, too. Carmelo Anthony is interchangeable with fellow elite-scoring NBA forwards NBA-finalist Kevin Durant and NBA-champion Dirk Nowitzki. KD and Dirk are every bit the iso volume scorers that Anthony is. In other words, the Knicks can win with Anthony as the centerpiece, but Anthony needs a partner to contend. The Sportige article comes close to the right answer by referring to Durant's struggles after Russell Westbrook's injury.

The right answer is not Anthony or Lin. Rather, the right answer is the Knicks needed both Carmelo Anthony *and* Jeremy Lin partnering in a Westbrook/Durant type of G/F dynamic duo.

The Lin/Anthony combination makes sense on its face because their games complement at G and F. With the Rockets, the combination of Lin/Harden is not as simple to balance because they are similar-type combo guards. I believe the Rockets are at their best with Lin controlling the ball as the PG while Harden plays as a SG who handles the ball well, but the Rockets organization seems to prefer Harden dominating the ball as the lead guard.

Eric

Castillo

Character always wins out.

This story doesn't surprise me.

I knew Sergeant First Class Raymond Castillo as Cadet Candidate Castillo when we were CCs together at USMAPS. I was older, prior service, and higher in the class ranking; nonetheless, I admired him. As young as he was, Castillo shone with the right stuff even then. He was thoughtful, self-aware, tough, and a true believer of duty, honor, country. A born soldier. More, Castillo was a born leader of soldiers in the ideal sense. Even then, he lived and breathed the Army values. The only reason he didn't make it to West Point with the rest of us was he couldn't write despite that the best CC writers at USMAPS, including me, did our best to tutor him. It was frustrating because Castillo was smart enough, otherwise a good student, skilled at math, well-spoken, willing to learn, and a hard worker. If he would have simply written his papers the same way he spoke, he would have been fine, but for some reason, there was a disconnect in his brain between his mind and his writing.

Castillo will always be one of my favorite people. My civil-military advocacy in college and my efforts to counter misrepresentations of the Iraq mission were motivated by soldiers like him. They are good, honorable men - worthier, stronger men than I am - the best of Americans who have risked themselves for duty, honor, country. They've earned it. They are righteous. They deserve to be empowered and honored for their selfless service and sacrifice.

Eric

Thoughts of the day

I agree with Ethan Chorin that President Obama's misguided Libya policy set the stage for the Benghazi consulate attack and other deleterious effects. For a liberal leadership posture, Bush's Middle East policy was correct. By retaining the same liberal posture yet switching course based on the faulty premise that Bush's Middle East policy was incorrect, Obama's Middle East policy has gone wrong.

2004 CNN report with Clinton supporting Bush on Iraq:

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

As shown by Clinton's quote, the Democrats understood the context and stakes in Iraq, yet they still distorted the public perception of the Iraq mission for parochial partisan gain. This postsecret from May 18 reminds me of the layers of damage caused by the misinformation, propaganda, and false narrative against the Iraq mission that the Democrats validated.

I haven't been following the Jason Richwine controversy, but here's his side of it. Judgybitch's take.

Abandoned places, such as the abandoned showpiece City Hall subway station.

Who you are, character, personality, intrinsic self, inner game is determinative. It always wins out. Talent, skill, resources, given advantages, and luck are just tools. What you do is episodic. Character is thematic. In the end, you are what your record says you are.

Free Northerner's manly reading lists. Compare to Columbia's renowned Core Curriculum.

Project Gutenberg - classics for free on-line.

Duke of Earl by Gene Chandler. "As I walk through this world, nothing can stop the Duke of Earl ... Nothing can stop me now, coz I'm the Duke of Earl!"

Goodnite, Sweetheart, Goodnite by the Spaniels. "Good night, sweetheart, well, it's time to go. I hate to leave you, but I really must say, oh good night, sweetheart, good night." "Baby, I just can't get right. Well, I hate to leave you, baby, I don't mean maybe, because I love you so." That's what it felt like when I left Korea, the Army, and her behind. To summarize, Every Little Thing She Does is Magic by the Police, Can't Fight This Feeling by REO Speedwagon, Teenager in Love by Dion and the Belmonts, and Goodnite, Sweetheart, Goodnite by the Spaniels sing the love story that wasn't. Rollo explains the 'click' together but ... mystery.

Sorrow.

Honor your father and mother by begetting children.

Narcotics Anonymous: "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results."

7 stages of grief (modified Kubler-Ross): Shock - Denial - Anger - Bargain - Depression - Testing - Acceptance.

Pulp Fiction Ezekiel 25:17 (the whole scene; revisited in the final scene). "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!"

No matter how much a drill sergeant yells at you while smoking you (and your fellow privates) in the pit or anywhere else, muscle failure is muscle failure. Where the drill sergeant makes a difference is your muscular capacity is higher than your perception of your muscular capability. The drill sergeant bullies you past the limits of your perception, gets more out of your capacity, and thereby improves your capability more than you would have on your own.

After watching Professor Szelényi's lectures on Hobbes and Locke, I'm disturbed that Hobbes's state of nature (scarce, rational self-interest, competitive) is logically sound while Locke's state of nature (abundance, anti-harm, cooperative) is a leap of faith. Locke's constitutional theory tracks very closely to Hobbes's, but Locke's deviation from Hobbes in order to elevate individual liberty seems based on an unfounded premise. Reconciling Hobbes's logic with Locke's wishful thinking as an American progressive liberal requires adopting a tiered belief system, like Maslow's hierarchy. Hobbes is correct about the state of nature, but one hopes his social contract will construct a foundation of security and stability upon which we can build a civilization that is sufficiently safe and abundant to grow a Lockean state. However, the Lockean state is artificial. The Lockean state of nature cannot be presumed. Hobbes's social contract, the Leviathan, must be strictly maintained as our social foundation in order to keep us above the Hobbesian state of nature. Note that Hobbes, while he does not elevate individual liberty, is a methodological individualist.

Story of a family who travelled from a Lockean state, the UK, to visit family in India and fell into a Hobbesian nightmare.

The French enlightment and Rousseau's general will are beloved by Marxists and Communists everywhere. For Locke and the English enlightment, individuals are intrinsically equal, therefore, the social contract is between individual, or sum of individuals, and sovereign. For Rousseau, the social contract is between general will and sovereign because, whereas Locke believed individuals are equal, Rousseau believed individuals are intrinsically unequal. Individual inequality means that neither individual interests nor even a sum of individual interests can define the common interest. Since individuals are unequal yet the common interest equally applies to all, then the common interest, ie, the general will, must be of a separate character than individual interests. The general will is supreme and citizens are obligated to submit to the general will even where it conflicts with individual interests. Practically, he who defines and controls the general will has a free hand to take freedom, property, even life from any individual who is in conflict with the general will. Thus, while general will underpins selfless civic duty and the ties that bind a diverse national people, it also opens the door for tyranny. In America, we have been progressively departing from our English political heritage of individual rights and aligning with the Continental political tradition of the collective.

The Theses on Feuerbach, published by Karl Marx in 1845 and described here by Professor Szelenyi, incisively describes my mindset as an activist in college. Marx's theory of self-estrangement (the illusion of freedom) or alienation in modern conditions speaks to me. The notion of unifying subject (my self) and object (my sensuous life - my world; my physical life - my do) fits MGTOW. MGTOW is about overcoming alienation. Does that make me a Marxist? I can at least say I newly appreciate the pre-Communist Manifesto Marx, Marx 1.0. Marx 2.0 started with the Communist Manifesto published in 1848. It appears Marx took a leap of faith by assigning revolutionary universal class status to the proletariat in order to create a jumping off point for the practical application of universal emancipation, similar to Locke building his constitutional arguments on a leap of faith with his anti-Hobbesian state of nature.

As an activist, I understand what Marx was attempting with the Communist Manifesto. I identify with Marx 2.0 in his struggle to resolve the gulf between the abstract goal of solving alienation through universal emancipation, along with the realization this change must be made by practical social activity, and the practical application for revolution. Marx settled on subjectifying the objectified proletariat as his vehicle; I settled on civil-military reform in our society's cognitive centers (Ivy League universities).

I made myself a bannock pizza deep dish style using my 3 quart mixing bowl in the Nesco. It worked. The crust tasted, looked, and felt (texture) like a reasonable approximation of a deep dish pizza crust. I left the bannock dough in the refrigerator overnight because I wasn't hungry. I learned that chilled bannock dough, like chilled brownie paste, also flour based, is easier to work with than just-made bannock dough. The cooked crust seemed thicker than usual, too. I'm not sure whether it tasted different, though the bitter taste from the baking soda seemed less.

This time, I let the Duncan Hines dark chocolate fudge brownie cool completely before eating it. Cooled, but not cold, the texture was more brownie-like and seemed to taste better, too.

I tried mixing evaporated milk into my last dark chocolate brownie mix. The result was the consistency was more brownie like. Still low on taste, though.

I bought Duncan Hines dark chocolate fudge cake mix on sale for 1.25 for a 16.5 ounce box. Ugh. It's tasteless, more tasteless even than the Duncan Hines dark chocolate fudge brownie mix. Granted, cakes are meant to be frosted, but the cake portion should have at least some flavor. The texture is cake texture rather than the relatively denser brownie. Adding evaporated milk to the cake batter makes the cake spongier.

I wonder why chicken takes longer to cook than pork. Less dense muscle fiber?

Golden Krust honey barbecue jerk sauce is quite tasty as a dipping sauce. Hunts hickory & brown sugar barbecue sauce is too strong as a dipping sauce and okay as a pre-cook baste - quite sticky, though, due to the corn syrup.

The turkey sausage is a pain in the ass. I just ate 2 bites that were half raw. How am I supposed to know the inside is no longer pink? I'm going to try boiling one next time before I grill it, like how I broil my pork before grilling it. I'm just afraid the tasty oil will leak out of the sausage when I boil it.

.99/lb pork neck bones - not worth it for the meat. A lot of bone for broth, though.

Bachelor meat-sauce pasta shortcut: Add the uncooked pasta directly to the sauce. Add enough liquid for the pasta to plump. The Mirro and burner worked well for making the meat-sauce pasta. Bachelor meat-sauce pasta is illusory. It looks like a heaping pile (as I've noted before) and tastes okay, but it's not filling, so it goes quick.

With the Sunbeam wounded, I could use a skillet, frying pan, or wok for my single burner. I'm waiting for one to turn up for scavenging. I can only cook so many ways with the grill pan. At least one frying pan was available, but I declined to take it at the time because my Sunbeam was still healthy and I wasn't using my burner yet. Just goes to show, gotta think ahead.

I recovered a Circulon stove-top grill pan insert but without its holder/drip pan. It looked sort of like a skillet. I can't use it to cook without its holder unless I use it concave or underside side up, and I don't know that the underside is safe to cook on. I can't think of any other use for it. So, back in the recycling bin it goes. Oh well.

16MAY13: I scavenged an aluminum Mirro-matic electric frying pan today. I guess it was discarded because it's missing its power supply, so now it's just a frying pan, no longer electric. It's otherwise in good shape. The lid is intact and it's been scrubbed clean. It has scratches, some discolorations, and stubborn (soybean) vegetable oil stains in all the hard-to-scrub places. The key, and lucky, characteristic of the pan is its bottom fits onto my burner. The Mirro-matic has a 15-cup (120 ounce) capacity, compared to 12 cups for the 3-quart mixing bowl and 9 cups for the Sunbeam.

In cooking and other useful endeavors, the right tool for the job makes a big difference and trial and error is necessary for improvement beyond the limits of conception.

Eric

Breaking news! Girls are less attracted to nice guys.

According to a study reported in Mens Health (h/t Roissy),

Turns out, women are less attracted to men who seem too caring on a first date, according to research in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

In the study, women were less likely to want to sleep with male acquaintances who expressed concern when they opened up than with men who were less emotionally responsive.

*

* Okay, 'no spark' isn't actually news, not anymore. The cite was just an opportunity to introduce the "You don't say?" graphic to my blog. I might use it again.

PS: Red-pill truth is breaking out. Life finds a way.

Eric

My high school varsity jacket

We were undefeated in the regular season, dominant Manhattan champions, and upset favored play-off opponents to reach the PSAL quarter-finals (3rd round - elite eight!) every year I bowled, thanks to Jeff.

In ways positive and negative, regretful, my Stuyvesant bowling team experience epitomizes my life so far.

If I could time travel like Peggy Sue Got Married (older mind transplanted in young self), not like Back to the Future, a do-over of my high school bowling career would be at the top of my wish list.

Eric

Jeremy Lin coming off the bench in Game 6

Jeremy Lin has been cleared to play Game 6 against the Thunder. The intriguing development is that Kevin McHale will bring Lin off the bench.

I want to see how Lin does in the 3rd guard role because I believe it's the role he's naturally best suited to play. While Lin as-is is a quality starting PG with room to grow, his game is ready made for the dynamic, Swiss-army-knife, game-changing, combo-SG/PG, 3rd guard role typified by Manu Ginobili and Thunder-version James Harden. Lin is better when he takes the swashbuckling, dominating approach that comes with the 3rd guard role than when he restrains himself with the game-managing mindset that comes with starting PG. The few elite NBA 3rd guards are my favorite players to watch and Lin has the goods to join them.

Lin can do a lot of damage to the Thunder if he unleashes himself on the Westbrook-less Thunder guards. With his poor play in Game 1 and injury stoking his critics, I believe Lin will be more than eager to strike hard against the Thunder tonight with some throwback Linsanity.

I said before the season:

Last season, Lin's play reminded often of a proto-Nash, but also reminded that he didn't play PG in college. I believe the ceiling for Lin is Steve Nash, if he can fully convert to PG and improve his streaky jumpshot, and his floor is Delonte West, if he is unable to convert to PG, loses his intuitive flair, and settles as a servicable combo guard. The niche for Lin between his floor and ceiling is do-everything, game-changing 3rd guard. Much of what Bill Simmons says about James Harden's 3rd guard role with the Thunder could apply to Lin, such as "like Dennis Johnson, Manu Ginobili, Joe Dumars and (going way back) Sam Jones before him, Harden has shown the enviable ability to lay low for 42 minutes, then rise to the occasion when it matters." With the Knicks, Lin could have shifted to the 3rd guard role if starting PG didn't work out. The Knicks need a versatile, clutch, playmaking 3rd guard to fill in the gaps on a team of specialists and poorly matched players, help Carmelo Anthony as a pressure release valve, and bail out the Knicks' clunky offense. On the Rockets, it's starting PG or bust for Lin.

"Starting PG or bust" is no longer the case due to the Rockets' success with Beverley and Garcia starting against the Westbrook-less Thunder while Lin was out. I look forward to watching Lin tonight revive his Knick-version takeover aggressiveness, versatility, energy, playmaking, high basketball IQ, big-moment clutchness, and creative isolation scoring, and establish himself as an elite NBA 3rd guard.

Post-game: Ouch. Linsanity did not reappear. The Rockets lost Game 6 while Lin finished his 1st post-season with a poor small game. Lin was fine on defense but tentative and out of sync with his teammates on offense. He only played 13 minutes and finished the game sitting on the bench.

Exit thoughts: Despite the disappointing post-season, the 2012-2013 season over-all was still a successful one for Lin. He played in all 82 regular-season games and showed his durability, established himself as a competent starting NBA PG with impressive flashes of Linsanity to show he has yet to reach his ceiling, and experienced the post-season. Lin is still progressing on the Nashian Mavs-period developmental curve. He essentially is in the same position now as he would have been last season had he played it out as the Knicks starting PG, then tasted the post-season against the Heat. This comment at jeremylin.net makes a good point that Lin's production this season was quite high relative to his low usage rate (38th among NBA PGs). A Lin doubter who apparently played for his HS basketball team is rebuked by indignant Lin fans.

Eric

Jesus hockey LOL

Jesus effortlessly masters hockey because he's Jesus, of course. LOL. I saved the pic from here.

Eric

Thoughts of the day

The Serenity prayer should be my guide, yet I couldn't resist commenting here, here, and here on a Princeton history professor's hit piece on President Bush, coinciding with the opening of Bush's presidential library. Here, too, under Yoo's National Review article.

There are cost/benefit and risk/reward analyses. There is also weighing trade-offs and alternatives.

CUMilComm need: core (living heritage and essence) and progress (tangible benefit and making a difference), with ties that bind a demographic with living flows across generations and geographies, especially to the core base on campus. Eg, Hearts of Oak.

“Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.” (on youtube) is the grim mantra that revives the Mandy Patinkin character who refuses to accept defeat despite seemingly mortal injuries in his running duel against the Christopher Guest character in The Princess Bride. I associate the line and scene with anyone who refuses to quit and keeps fighting despite seemingly decisive defeat and overwhelming disadvantage when surrender and submission seem reasonable. A good pop culture example is Rocky coming off the mat in Round 13? to nearly knock out Apollo in their first fight. With the NBA play-offs in mind, another example is an 8th seed that's blown out 3 straight games by an obviously superior number 1 seed to start their series, but then in Game 4, the 8th seed claws its way to a win. Then they eke out a Game 5 win. Now it's Game 6, 1 game from a tied series and a winner-take-all Game 7. The 8th seed is dug in and the 1 seed has no more moves in reserve, no higher gear to put away the 8th seed.

Truth (introverted, honest, genuine, real, open, integrity, essential, inquisitorial) and politics (extroverted, dissembling, guarded, maneuvering, manipulative, agenda, adversarial) are fundamentally different in nature.

Meg Tilly says she was burned when she gave her truth in a political setting, an interview. The interview was represented to Tilly as focused on her new book, but instead focused on "tabloid fodder" about Tilly's love life. A journalist's take. How does one live a truthful life while engaging a political world?

I like elegant, simply functional solutions. Goes with scavenging.

Maslow's hierarchy: Making a life decision based on I-want is preferable to I-need, but I-need must be secured, too.

The dead end of Junior Seau's CTE: How do you fix your crumbling life when the tool to fix your life is your mind, your brain, yet the chief culprit in your downfall is corruption of your brain's workings (broken hardware, software errors).

Ray Mears ties an "Arab-style headdress" to shade his head for desert survival.

The ADA's How to floss.

Best Yet garden combination pasta sauce is surprisingly good.

Salty egg and onion fried rice, fatty country pork rib (broiled and grilled with onions), and bone broth is a decadent meal.

I tried a bachelor stew with ground turkey instead of the canned salmon. It's better with the canned salmon and salmon oil. Bachelor stew made with canned salmon is decadent. Made with the ground turkey, it's just soup.

When deciding what flavors to add, keep in mind it's not a sliding scale where more flavors equals better flavor and fewer flavors equals worse flavor. Plain is a flavor, too. Think in terms of distinct flavor profiles, not comparitively more or less or better or worse.

The store-brand smoked hocks aren't bad at 1.49/lb. There's still some aftertaste, but it's better than the factory-brand smoked ham I bought a while back. Still, cooking my own pork is better.

Duncan Hines dark chocolate fudge brownie mix is unexpectedly weak flavored. Too bad I didn't grab a 2nd chewy fudge brownie mix instead. The dark chocolate fudge brownie mix instructs adding 1 large egg, 1/3 cup oil, and 1/3 cup water for chewy brownies, while the chewy fudge brownie mix instruct adding 2 large eggs, 1/4 cup water, and 3/4 cup oil for chewy brownies (the amounts differ for "cake like" or "cookie like" texture). I planned to exchange the 2nd box of dark chocolate fudge brownie mix, and would have, had the store not been sold out of chewy fudge brownie mix. Instead, I decided to experiment. Since the listed ingredients are the same for both brownie mixes, although it's implied the amounts of the various ingredients differ, I tried adding 2 eggs, 1/4 cup water, and 3/4 cup oil to the 2nd dark chocolate fudge brownie mix in order to find out whether the result would taste like chewy fudge brownies. Nope, still weak flavored. I'm adding grape jelly and sour cream for flavor.

The Salton works for making brownies and bannock. They fluff up like man-tou, probably because I use the 1 quart mixing bowl with water around it, so it cooks with wet steamer heat, not dry oven heat.

Farrelly brothers bowling comedy Kingpin is a classic.

Simpsons classics Homer's Barbershop Quartet and Last Exit to Springfield sped up to 15 minutes.

Laina, aka Overly Attached GF, has a youtube channel. Turns out she's an entertainer with an expressive face.

Jason Collins, the starting center on the fun, likeable Kidd-led Nets teams of the early 2000s, admitted he's gay. Good for him. However, the dark side of the story is that Collins dated Carolyn Moos for 8+ years from 2001 to 2009, when Collins broke off their engagement a month before their wedding. (Pic of her in college - cute girl.) Moos, born in 1978 and unmarried and childless at 34, invested her biologically prime years in Collins based on a lie. Dated 8+ years, engaged - did they not have sex?

I wonder how Monica Seles is doing these days? I had a small crush on her back in the day. She seemed like an unaffected, down-to-earth, approachably cute, nice girl who happened to be great at tennis. Hm. As far as I know, she hasn't married nor had kids either.

'Yeah? You and what army?' It's true. If you're going to battle, you need an army, or at least a gang. Righteousness ought to be enough to compete, but in the real world it is not even close.

Keanu invokes The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost and wonders whether he should pursue his dream and thereby choose the risk of freedom over the guarantee of security. As always, the harder right is weighed against the easier wrong.

Oh, my broken heart.

The change must be internal this time.

Eric

My responses to CNN hit piece against President Bush

CNN article "History's jury is still out on George W. Bush" by Julian Zelizer.

My response to the author:

Professor Zelizer, I disagree with you on several points. I'll focus on one point here: your analysis is flawed by crediting Bush with harmful effects of Obama's policy decisions where he changed course from Bush.

Our Iraq mission was trending as a success at the point that Obama and Biden badly bungled the SOFA negotiation. It's as though Eisenhower somehow fumbled away Germany, Japan, and Korea, for whom US-led nation-building also required many years, at their critical turning points.

By the close of the Bush administration, the US presence in geopolitically critical Iraq was settling into a stabilizing role like our long-term presence in Europe and Asia. Obama's failure in Iraq has led to, at the very least, a stronger position for Iran, decrease of US options in the region, and the heightened risk of reversing hard-won progress in Iraq. Like Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia, an empowered liberal Iraq should have been the lynchpin of our Middle East strategy. Now, we can only hope the US did enough for Iraq to resist corrupting influences and stand on its own before our premature exit.

The Arab Spring occurred during the Obama administration. It, indeed, was likely inspired in part by Bush's liberal initiatives. However, Bush's Freedom Agenda was a long-term plan for controlled, measured progress from autocratic rule to liberal modernity in the Middle East with active US assistance. Obama scrapped Bush's Freedom Agenda in favor of "leading from behind", which turned into short-sighted ad hoc applications of US power. Predictably, with poorly and unevenly applied US assistance, the Arab Spring has degenerated from its early aspirations.

Islamic terrorism suffered a massive defeat in Iraq at the hands of the US-led coalition and the Iraqi people. Predictably, Islamic extremists have stepped in where the US has stepped away under Obama and appear to be having a resurgence in the winner-take-all chaos of the Arab Spring.

Obama's dramatic escalation of drone kills is also a departure from Bush.

The counter-terror industry consensus is that the Bush administration was very effective at breaking down Islamic terror networks and organizations. As such, no more Islamic terror attacks were successfully carried out in the US for the remainder of the Bush administration.

However, Islamic terrorism is adaptive and resilient. Because Bush administration efforts successfully reduced organized Islamic terrorism (which again, appears to be having a resurgence in the Arab Spring), anti-US Islamic terrorism has shifted to the Anwar al-Awlaki brand of self-actualizing 'lone wolf' attacks. As such, there has been an upsurge of self-actualized Islamic terrorist attacks during the Obama administration.

The Boston Marathon attacks can't be credited to the Bush administration. They happened 4+ years after the Bush administration within a shift in anti-US Islamic terrorism that evolved on Obama's watch. The drone killing of Anwar al-Awlaki shows the Obama administration identified that shift in Islamic terrorism. The question is whether homeland security under the Obama administration failed to adapt sufficiently to the shift.

I also engaged in a comment thread:

Comment. My response:

Bush made the right call on Iraq. If you're against a last chance for Saddam to comply, then your only alternatives are maintaining an indefinite toxic status quo or freeing a noncompliant Saddam. Keep in mind that a founding reason for al Qaeda in the 1990s was our indefinite toxic status quo in Iraq where we were rendered effectively complicit with Saddam's harm of the Iraqi people.

Iraq's guilt was established and presumed as the basis of the Gulf War ceasefire and UNSC resolutions on weapons, humanitarian, and terrorism standards. Saddam's noncompliance was established. There was no burden on the US and UN to prove Iraq's guilt. The burden was entirely on Saddam to prove his compliance. Over 12 years, Saddam was given multiple chances to pass. In 2002-03, he failed for the last time.

Saddam did not even try to pretend compliance with the humanitarian standards, which were equally triggers for war as the weapons standards, which he also failed. Saddam was in fact guilty.

The alternative choices were not better. The default was an indefinite toxic,
provocative, harmful, expensive stalemate. The only other alternative was to free a noncompliant Saddam.

It's not the US presence that has caused pain in Iraq. First, the pain in Iraq was caused by Saddam. After Saddam, the US was dedicated to peace operations in Iraq, just as we've built lasting peace in other countries we've occupied. But great pain was caused by the Islamic terrorist onslaught in Iraq. To our credit, we honored our promise and refused to abandon the Iraqi people to the terrorists.

Again, if you're opposed to giving Saddam a last chance to comply, then would you have maintained the toxic status quo indefinitely or freed a noncompliant Saddam?

Comment. My response:

Again, it was not the US or UN's place to prove Iraq was guilty. Iraq was established and presumed guilty as the basis of the ceasefire and UNSC resolutions. The burden was *entirely* on Saddam to prove his rehabilitation. With Saddam, we had to be sure.

The argument of Iraq's innocence is based on information after the fact and unrelated to the relevant procedure. In fact, Saddam was guilty.

The justifications for OIF aren't retroactive. See the 2002 Congressional authorization and UNSC resolution 1441. The baseline case against Saddam was diverse. The threat of Saddam was part and parcel with the 12 year course with Iraq.

Moreover, the case against Saddam was mature by Operation Desert Fox in 1998 when Clinton set regime change as the solution for the Iraq problem, labeled Saddam a "clear and present" danger irrespective of possession of WMD, and declared Saddam had failed his "final chance".

Saddam posed a threat distinct from other nations because his belligerence combined with his repeated crossing of red lines under dire warning that other actors have not crossed. Saddam showed he could not be treated like a rational actor.

The US was also in an a uniquely direct and harmful relationship with Iraq that needed to be resolved, especially in the wake of 9/11. Keep in mind that the most visible, provocative, expensive, and dangerous part of our pre-OIF mission in Iraq - the no-fly zones - were enforcing humanitarian standards, not weapons standards. Clinton intervened in the Balkans on humanitarian grounds before Bush and Obama intervened in Libya on humanitarian grounds after Bush. Humanitarian grounds were included in the Iraq intervention.

9/11 merely emphasized and highlighted the existing terrorism part of the case against Saddam, which had dated to the earliest UNSC resolutions on Iraq. Clinton also acted on Saddam's terrorist threat. Saddam didn't need al Qaeda to be a terrorist; he had demonstrated his own capacity and willingness to use unconventional warfare.

To be accurate, "imminent" threat was not cited. Actually, Bush said that for an unconventional threat like terrorism, we cannot afford to wait for indications of an imminent threat, like we can for a conventional threat. In a terrorist attack, "imminent" often means the attack just happened.

The bottom-line is that Bush's case against Saddam didn't trigger the war. It only led to the application of the final compliance test under credible threat for Saddam. Saddam held the power to prevent war by complying fully on the weapons, humanitarian, and terrorism standards. Instead, Saddam refused to comply again on standards that he could and should have met in 1991.

So, facing the Iraq problem in the context of the decision point in Bush's shoes, if you would not have given a final chance to Saddam to comply, then would you have maintained the toxic status quo indefinitely (in the wake of 9/11 no less) or freed a noncompliant Saddam?

Comment. My response:

Again, Saddam was established and presumed guilty on WMD as one of the several bases of the Gulf War ceasefire and UNSC resolutions. We don't ignore the other threats. But starting with the Gulf War, our enforcement in Iraq, our relationship with Iraq, and the threat of Saddam were unique.

Again, the argument including the image of a 'mushroom cloud' wasn't describing a conventional "imminent" threat but rather explaining the urgency of resolving the Iraq problem in light of the unconventional threat. If the argument was based on an imminent threat, then Saddam wouldn't have been given a final chance to comply under credible threat of ground invasion and regime change. Instead, an imminent threat would have compelled an immediate invasion with no compliance test.

When Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 as the penultimate enforcement measure to ground invasion, he didn't claim knowledge of Iraqi WMD. Rather, Clinton's reason was that our lack of knowledge of Iraq's WMD as a result of Saddam's noncompliance was equal to Iraq's guilt on WMD due to the foundational presumption of guilt.

So, if Bush lacked knowledge on Iraqi WMD, then that only takes him to the lower bar that triggered Clinton's military enforcement on Iraq. Again, Saddam also had to meet humanitarian and other standards as well as the weapons standards.

Comment. My response:

The US was the primary enforcement authority on Iraq starting with the Gulf War and that role deepened through the Clinton administration. By the close of the Clinton administration, the US was inextricably entangled with Saddam. After years of struggling with Saddam, Clinton finally set regime change as the solution for the Iraq problem if Saddam failed to comply.

We were going to crash land with Saddam one way or the other, with or without 9/11. We could either take control of that crash landing or allow Saddam to decide the manner of the crash landing.

The Iraq mission did cost too much for a number of reasons that are correctable from practical, political, and policy standpoints. We did underestimate the capacity of Islamic terrorists to slaughter Muslims in Iraq and sabotage the nascent state. But keep in mind, too, those "trillions" (when did that become plural?) include possibly exaggerated extrapolated costs that aren't used to calculate costs of other wars.

What did we get for it? We achieved Clinton's goals for Iraq, ie, Iraq in compliance with the ceasefire and UNSC resolutions, Iraq at peace with its neighbors and the international community, and Iraq internally reformed. The 1st 2 goals were firmly met. The 3rd goal was met but left shakier than we like.

I'm impressed with how Saddam nostalgics have rehabilitated him in death into a reliable American agent for peace in the Middle East. Touting Saddam as the solution for Iran is like saying we should have propped up Hitler in order to deal with the Soviet Union for us (an argument that was made before WW2). Hitler + USSR was the worst of WW2, not peace in our time.

Saddam was not the answer.

I agree that it would have been better for the US to build up Iraq more so Iraq would be less vulnerable to Iranian encroachment. Unfortunately, after the great gains of the Counterinsurgency "Surge" and Anbar Awakening, the glue holding together the stabilizing pluralistic Iraq wasn't dry yet when Obama and Biden badly bungled the SOFA negotiation. As with the Arab Spring and elsewhere, wherever the US steps away, an ambitious competitor will naturally step in.

As to your last point, the Iraqis tried their "Arab Spring" in 1991 when they answered Bush the father's call to revolt. Then despite that our forces were still on the ground, we stood down and allowed Saddam to slaughter them.

Can you imagine the utter trust that the Iraqi people had in America to risk their lives against the psychopathic tyrant on the mere word of the US president? Yet despite being in position to help them, we betrayed them. Bush the father's short-sighted cost/benefit calculation in 1991 greatly damaged our standing at the historical point that our world-changing influence and reputation were at their highest.

Set aside the other justifications, and the US owed the Iraqi people a tremendous debt of honor for our betrayal in 1991. By resisting the calls to abandon the Iraqi people to the terrorists like we once abandoned them to Saddam's wrath, George W Bush restored some of the American honor lost by his father.

Comment. My response:

Clinton:
"Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."

Obama:
"Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner."

Iraq in compliance and at peace with its neighbors and international community, and no more Saddam is hardly a "major geo-political disaster". Our troops are justified to be proud of their extraordinary achievements in Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom was an honorable mission and one of the best grounded missions in terms of law and policy in our history.

Iraq, however, does represent a lost opportunity. It's a tragedy that we left Iraq prematurely, which runs counter to our nation's tradition of securing the peace after war. Due to the success of the Counterinsurgency "Surge" where Americans and Iraqis had together defeated the terrorists, Iraq was finally on the right track. Bush gave Obama a winning hand in Iraq, and Obama wanted to stay. At the point that Obama and Biden bungled the SOFA negotiation, serving in Iraq was even turning routine for our troops, something like serving in Korea.

Had we stayed in Iraq, a progressive pluralistic Iraq with our active partnership would have been a positive force in the region, a game-changer. But Obama lost the game-changing opportunity that was so hard earned by Americans and Iraqis alike. Because we left Iraq prematurely, Iranian influence has grown there and the situation in Iraq has deteriorated.

Obama's bungling of the SOFA negotiation with Iraq and the confused, uneven "lead from behind" policy that replaced Bush's Freedom Agenda have lost ground on the hard-earned and, yes, expensive progress that Bush handed to Obama.

Eric

Russell Westbrook injury is an opportunity for Jeremy Lin

This is an excellent breakdown of Jeremy Lin's game based on this season.

Russell Westbrook, one of the most dynamic, athletic guards in the NBA, tore his right knee lateral meniscus in Game 2 of the Rockets-Thunder first-round play-off series. Ironically, that's the same injury that ended Jeremy Lin's season last year.

In Game 2, Lin suffered a chest contusion and spasms that kept him out of the 2nd half of the game. He should be fine for Game 3.

Westbrook's injury greatly diminishes the Thunder as a contender. They rely heavily on both Westbrook and Durant as creative scorers and playmakers. Outside of their two stars, the Thunder roster is made up of role players. Remove one of the stars and the system becomes ordinary. They become one-dimensional. The Thunder back-up PGs, Reggie Jackson and Derek Fisher, are a big drop-off from Westbrook. Too bad for them that they traded Harden.

The Rockets have a good shot to win the series now. Their biggest match-up advantage is at PG with Lin against the Thunder back-up PGs. Reputations are made and ruined in the play-offs and Lin has started his play-off career poorly. With Westbrook out, Lin is set up to excel and start building up his post-season reputation.

Post-game update: Lin only played 18 minutes. He's still hurt and didn't play well. Durant took a retaliatory shot on Lin for the Westbrook injury. It didn't look like much, but jerked Lin's arm, which pulled on his chest contusion. Ouch. The Thunder, after a hot start that peaked with a 26-point 2nd quarter lead, looked as one-dimensional as expected in Game 3. The Thunder were lucky to pull out the win. If any team can come back from a 0-3 series deficit, it's the high-octane Rockets offense against these crippled Thunder. If Lin can recover for Game 4 and take advantage of the PG mismatch, the Rockets should win.

If the Rockets season ends against the Thunder, Lin essentially will be at the same place in his career he would have reached had he played through his injury and suited up hurt against the Heat last season: roughly a season's worth of experience as a starting point guard and getting wet in the post-season.

Eric