2007 NBA Playoff Predictions

My views on the state of Pakistan Cricket

So this World Cup campaign went about as bad as it possibly could have. A lot of changes coming, some that were forced and some that are badly needed.

First of all most importantly hopefully the cowards involved in the Bob Woolmer murder are caught fast and dealt with. It is a major black eye for cricket and an even bigger one for Pakistan. I know I was in the minority as far as retaining Woolmer past the World Cup is concerned but he did do a lot for Pakistani cricket if you look at the big picture. Do people even remember where this team was 4 years ago? Say what you want about Woolmer and Inzi but this was a very steady time for Pakistani cricket. Despite all their criticisms you have seen the internal politics and fighting within the team disappear under their watch.

The problem with Pakistani Cricket to me is more the culture of the PCB then the players themselves. Sure Inzi's captaincy in the past 6 months took a huge step back from the strides he had made in the year and a half before that but does anyone at PCB know what they are doing? Why the constant shuffling of the lineup? Why do the same useless players keep showing up the lineup when other young promising players are shuffled in and out for no obvious reason. What does Yasir Hameed have to do to earn a spot? Why has Imran Nazir been shrugged aside for so long? What more does Asim Kamal need to do to earn a spot in the test lineup? How many more chances is Rana Naved going to get? What is Kaneria's role on the team?

So who is the next captain? The obvious front runner is Younis Khan, a man who probably should've been captain 2 years ago. Does he merit a guaranteed ODI spot at this time though? Do they go with seperate ODI and Test teams and captain? I wouldn't be surprised though if Pakistan bypasses him altogether and goes another route as far as the captaincy is concerned. Shahid Afridi, Abdul Razzaq and Shoaib Malik are 3 names you definitely will hear. These 3 will be part of whatever future the Pakistan team has. Might as well get them groomed for 2011. The 3 are still relatively young but have played long enough where experience isn't a problem. When all is said and done though you will probably see Younis Khan as the captain for now with one of the 3 as Vice Captain being groomed for 2011.

What will the Pakistani team look like when they next step onto the playing field? Does Younis Khan even make the ODI squad? I am going to go with an assumption of yes on that one for now as I don't think they will go to that extreme.

ODIs
1) Salman Butt
2) Imran Nazir
3) Yasir Hameed
4) Shoaib Malik
5) Younis Khan (Captain)
6) Shahid Afridi (Vice Captain)
7) Abdul Razzaq
8)Kamran Akmal/Zulqarnain Haider (WK)
9)Shoaib Akhtar
10) Umar Gul
11) Mohammed Asif

There are other guys who will be on the fringe. Mohammad Sami isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Yasir Arafat will see some playing time. Imran Farhat will be around as an opening option but is there room for all 3 of Farhat, Butt and Nazir in the lineup? I really don't see room for Mohammad Yousuf in the ODI squad anymore. Sure he still has a few good years left in him....but is he a factor for 2011?

Tests
1) Salman Butt
2) Imran Farhat
3) Yasir Hameed/Mohammad Yousuf
4) Younis Khan (Captain)
5) Shoaib Malik
6) Shahid Afridi (Vice Captain)
7) Kamran Akmal/Zulqarnain Haiderr (WK)
8) Abdul Razzaq/Danish Kaneria
9)Shoaib Akhtar
10) Umar Gul
11) Mohammed Asif

We've had a good U-19 team the last few years....and I'd expect a few of those guys to make the transition to the team soon enough. There is definitely no lack of talent in Pakistan. The problem is harnessing that talent. Domestic cricket, while it has improved in the past couple of years still needs a lot of fixing.

Who's going to coach this team? Rameez Raja laid out an intriguing plan today on Cricinfo.

White's rock quarry could net pitcher billions

Wednesday, February 28, 2007
White's rock quarry could net pitcher billions
Associated Press

VERO BEACH, Fla. -- Matt White, a journeyman pitcher trying to make the Los Angeles Dodgers, could become baseball's first billionaire player.

"It sounds bogus even saying those numbers. I'm just a small town guy trying to get to the big leagues. It's beyond comprehension."
-- Matt White

It has nothing to do with his arm. He owns a rock quarry in western Massachusetts.

White, who has appeared in seven big league games in nine professional seasons, paid $50,000 three years ago to buy 50 acres of land from an elderly aunt who needed the money to pay for a nursing home.

While clearing out a couple acres to build a home, he discovered stone ledges in the ground, prompting him to have the property surveyed.

A geologist estimated there were 24 million tons of the stone on his land. The stone is being sold for upward of $100 per ton, meaning there's well over $2 billion worth of material used for sidewalks, patios and the like.

Of course, that doesn't factor in the expenses involved in processing the stone and transporting it for sale.

"It sounds bogus even saying those numbers," White said. "I'm just a small town guy trying to get to the big leagues. It's beyond comprehension."

The news has prompted some of White's teammates to refer to him as "The Billionaire," but the 29-year-old left-hander isn't counting his money just yet.

"There are a lot of questions," he said. "It takes time, it takes money, it takes machines. There are professionals who handle that stuff."

White's father has been involved in selling the stone, but it's presently a small-time operation.

"I guess you could say the property is for sale," White said with a chuckle. "We'll have to see how things turn out. I don't even know where to start. I'm in the process now of getting in touch with business-savvy guys, finding out how much to ask."

White said he doesn't feel like he's wealthy, which he isn't quite yet.

"Not at all. I don't live like a rich man," he said. "I'm a minor league guy who's played winter ball to make ends meet."

Dr. Peter Pannish, an adjunct professor in the department of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts, surveyed the property several months ago. He said he believes the stone was formed about 400 million years ago.

"It's basically a slabby rock that can be used for sidewalks, building faces and stone walls," Pannish said from his Amherst, Mass., office. "You can use it for a lot of other things, like flagstone on a patio. There are some sidewalks right here on campus that are made of that same rock."

Pannish said he believes White could sell his property for several million dollars, or more.

"As far as hundreds of millions, I doubt if that's possible because of all the expenses that would have to be considered," Pannish said. "But it could be quite a bit of money. He probably needs a mining engineer or an economic geologist to come up with a good evaluation."

White has received inquiries about making national television appearances, and has even been contacted about a possible movie. He is represented by Herbie Zucker of Zucker Sports Management in Chicago.

But for now, White is concentrating on his day job. And that's no surprise, considering pitching in the big leagues has been a lifelong dream.

"They say lefties bloom later than righties. I keep telling myself that," he said. "I'm here to make the big-league team. I feel confident about that, absolutely. I've had some pretty good years in Triple-A.

"I plan to play baseball until I can't play anymore. My goal is to play in the big leagues, regardless of what happens with the rock quarry."

White signed a minor league contract last December with the Dodgers -- his eighth organization. He has appeared in 254 minor league games, 136 of them starts.

White pitched in three games each for Boston and Seattle in 2003, and one for Washington in 2005, going 0-2 and allowing 18 earned runs in 9 2/3 innings.

The Boston manager in 2003 was current Dodgers skipper Grady Little.

"The kid has a genuine love for the game," Little said. "He's quite a competitor, he's always striving to get better. It's not about money for him. He's prepared himself well coming into camp and he'll be going after somebody's job. He'll be given an opportunity.

"It's a tough hill to climb. We have 28 pitchers in camp, we'll leave spring training with 11 or 12. Before it's over, we might need 20. He's in there trying to get a job."

With that, Little smiled and said: "Along the way, if anybody needs landscaping stone, we know where to find it."

Link

Pretty good return on investment.

Report: President Isiah Thomas Has No Exit Strategy For Knicks

Report: President Isiah Thomas Has No Exit Strategy For Knicks

NEW YORK—According to several sources in the coaching and management structures of the New York Knicks basketball team, Knicks President Isiah Thomas has "no coherent plan or strategy of any kind" to remove the Knicks from the long series...

Rumsfeld Leaves Most Recent Job Off Resumé

Rumsfeld Leaves Most Recent Job Off Resumé

ST. MICHAELS, MD—After including his four terms in Congress, a two-year stint in banking, and volunteer work, Rumsfeld said he "ran out of room" for the high-ranking cabinet post.

Bears Lead Rex Grossman To Super Bowl

Bears Lead Rex Grossman To Super Bowl

CHICAGO—While coming up big in a 39-14 victory over the New Orleans Saints Sunday, the Chicago Bears single-handedly shouldered the burden...

Bears Inspire A City Still Reeling From Great Chicago Fire Of 1871

Bears Inspire A City Still Reeling From Great Chicago Fire Of 1871

CHICAGO—As Brian Urlacher triumphantly hoisted the George Halas Trophy Sunday, it was a symbol of more than just the Bears' 39-14 victory over New Orleans—it was a symbol of hope to the thousands of Chicagoans who are still struggling...

NHL Admits Slam-Dunk-Contest Portion Of All-Star Skills Competition A Mistake

DALLAS-Commissioner Gary Bettman told reporters Tuesday night that the addition of the first-ever slam-dunk contest to the NHL All-Star skills...

Olbermann: Special comment about 'sacrifice'

Olbermann: Special comment about 'sacrifice'

BBC reports Bush will reveal troop surge plan in sacrifice-themed speech

SPECIAL COMMENT

By Keith Olbermann

Anchor, 'Countdown'

Updated: 9:57 p.m. ET Jan 2, 2007

If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?

Would you at least protest?

What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?

What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them — and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?

This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush’s “new Iraq strategy,” and his impending speech to the nation, which, according to a quoted senior American official, will be about troop increases and “sacrifice.”

The president has delayed, dawdled and deferred for the month since the release of the Iraq Study Group.

He has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them.

If the BBC is right — and we can only pray it is not — he has settled on the only solution all the true experts agree cannot possibly work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but as part of some flabby plan for “sacrifice.”

Sacrifice!

More American servicemen and women will have their lives risked.

More American servicemen and women will have their lives ended.

More American families will have to bear the unbearable and rationalize the unforgivable —“sacrifice” — sacrifice now, sacrifice tomorrow, sacrifice forever.

And more Americans — more even than the two-thirds who already believe we need fewer troops in Iraq, not more — will have to conclude the president does not have any idea what he’s doing — and that other Americans will have to die for that reason.

It must now be branded as propaganda — for even the president cannot truly feel that very many people still believe him to be competent in this area, let alone “the decider.”

But from our impeccable reporter at the Pentagon, Jim Miklaszewski, tonight comes confirmation of something called “surge and accelerate” — as many as 20,000 additional troops —f or “political purposes” ...

This, in line with what we had previously heard, that this will be proclaimed a short-term measure, for the stated purpose of increasing security in and around Baghdad, and giving an Iraqi government a chance to establish some kind of order.

This is palpable nonsense, Mr. Bush.

If this is your intention — if the centerpiece of your announcement next week will be “sacrifice” — sacrifice your intention, not more American lives!

As Sen. Joseph Biden has pointed out, the new troops might improve the ratio our forces face relative to those living in Baghdad (friend and foe), from 200 to 1, to just 100 to 1.

“Sacrifice?”

No.

A drop in the bucket.

The additional men and women you have sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets.

They will not be there “short-term,” Mr. Bush; for many it will mean a year or more in death’s shadow.

This is not temporary, Mr. Bush.

For the Americans who will die because of you, it will be as permanent as it gets.

The various rationales for what Mr. Bush will reportedly re-christen “sacrifice” constitute a very thin gruel, indeed.

The former labor secretary, Robert Reich, says Sen. John McCain told him that the “surge” would help the “morale” of the troops already in Iraq.

If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam ... or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent ... or Mr. McCain has departed from reality.

Then there is the argument that to take any steps toward reducing troop numbers would show weakness to the enemy in Iraq, or to the terrorists around the world.

This simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists.

We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed for no good reason.

We have now shown them that we will continue to do so.

We have shown them our stupidity.

Mr. Bush, your judgment about Iraq — and now about “sacrifice” — is at variance with your people’s, to the point of delusion.

Your most respected generals see no value in a “surge” — they could not possibly see it in this madness of “sacrifice.”

The Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake.

Perhaps dozens more have told you it would be a mistake.

And you threw their wisdom back, until you finally heard what you wanted to hear, like some child drawing straws and then saying “best two out of three … best three out of five … hundredth one counts.”

Your citizens, the people for whom you work, have told you they do not want this, and moreover, they do not want you to do this.

Yet once again, sir, you have ignored all of us.

Mr. Bush, you do not own this country!

To those Republicans who have not broken free from the slavery of partisanship — those bonded still, to this president and this administration, and now bonded to this “sacrifice” —proceed at your own peril.

John McCain may still hear the applause of small crowds — he has somehow inured himself to the hypocrisy, and the tragedy, of a man who considers himself the ultimate realist, courting the votes of those who support the government telling visitors to the Grand Canyon that it was caused by the Great Flood.

That Mr. McCain is selling himself off to the irrational right, parcel by parcel, like some great landowner facing bankruptcy, seems to be obvious to everybody but himself.

Or, maybe it is obvious to him and he simply no longer cares.

But to the rest of you in the Republican Party:

We need you to speak up, right now, in defense of your country’s most precious assets — the lives of its citizens who are in harm’s way.

If you do not, you are not serving this nation’s interests — nor your own.

November should have told you this.

The opening of the new Congress on Wednesday and Thursday should tell you this.

Next time, those missing Republicans will be you.

And to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you proceed at your own peril, as well.

President Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage.

The equation is simple. This country does not want more troops in Iraq.

It wants fewer.

Go and make it happen, or go and look for other work.

Yet you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of courses, and cut off funding for the war, Mr. Bush will ignore you as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend the money meant to protect the troops, and re-purpose it to keep as many troops there as long as he can keep them there.

Because that’s what this is all about, is it not, Mr. Bush?

That is what this “sacrifice” has been for.

To continue this senseless, endless war.

You have dressed it up in the clothing, first of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, then of liberation ... then of regional imperative ... then of oil prices ... and now in these new terms of “sacrifice” — it’s like a damned game of Colorforms, isn’t it, sir?

This senseless, endless war.

But — it has not been senseless in two ways.

It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

It has gotten many of us used to the idea — the virtual “white noise” — of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of vague “sacrifice” for some fluid cause, too complicated to be interpreted except in terms of the very important-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrase “the war on terror.”

And the war’s second accomplishment — your second accomplishment, sir — is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.

Because if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can’t sell them any more until the first thousand have been destroyed.

The service men and women are ancillary to the equation.

This is about the planned obsolescence of ordnance, isn’t, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a $125 million courtroom complex at Gitmo, complete with restaurants.

At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir.

And we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

You have insisted, Mr. Bush, that we must not lose in Iraq, that if we don’t fight them there we will fight them here — as if the corollary were somehow true, that if by fighting them there we will not have to fight them here.

And yet you have re-made our country, and not re-made it for the better, on the premise that we need to be ready to “fight them here,” anyway, and always.

In point of fact even if the civil war in Iraq somehow ended tomorrow, and the risk to Americans there ended with it, we would have already suffered a defeat — not fatal, not world-changing, not, but for the lives lost, of enduring consequence.

But this country has already lost in Iraq, sir.

Your policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety here.

You have already fomented new terrorism and new terrorists.

You have already stoked paranoia.

You have already pitted Americans, one against the other.

We ... will have to live with it.

We ... will have to live with what — of the fabric of our nation — you have already “sacrificed.”

The only object still admissible in this debate is the quickest and safest exit for our people there.

But you — and soon, Mr. Bush, it will be you and you alone — still insist otherwise.

And our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers will be sacrificed there tonight, sir, so that you can say you did not “lose in Iraq.”

Our policy in Iraq has been criticized for being indescribable, for being inscrutable, for being ineffable.

But it is all too easily understood now.

First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.

Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.

If what is reported is true — if your decision is made and the “sacrifice” is ordered — take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning — Gerald Ford:

Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation ahead of some kind of misguided vision.

Atone.

Sacrifice, Mr. Bush?

No, sir, this is not “sacrifice.” This has now become “human sacrifice.”

And it must stop.

And you can stop it.

Next week, make us all look wrong.

Our meaningless sacrifice in Iraq must stop.

And you must stop it.

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

I'll post up the video when I find it.

Gammons:Zito never misses a beat

Zito never misses a beat

posted: Friday, December 29, 2006 | Print Entry
filed under: San Francisco Giants

The first time I saw Barry Zito was in Bourne, Mass., in 1997. He was going into his junior year, transferring from junior college to USC, but he'd been drafted by the Texas Rangers in the third round and was asking for $300,000 to sign.

He was brilliant, but a scout from the Rangers kept telling those around him that Zito's gun readings didn't merit $300,000. "But hitters are swinging and missing at all three of his pitches," I offered, and was told that Zito didn't throw hard enough to get $300,000.

So much for gun readings, and the old argument that eyes tell more than what hitters do and don't do against a pitcher. Zito went to USC, and in June 1999 was taken with the ninth pick in the nation because Billy Beane had the guts and brains to choose players based on performance. Some 16 months later, Zito beat the Yankees in the ALDS. The following October, Derek Jeter's unforgettable relay nailed Jeremy Giambi at the plate to cost Zito a 1-0, eight-inning, two-hit loss to Mike Mussina, and the next year he was the Cy Young Award winner.

Understand that while Zito surfs, plays guitar with John Mayer, does yoga and has the mussed hair of a rock star, former teammate Scott Hatteberg called him "the biggest nerd in America." Look, it takes Zito an hour or two to make that hair look uncombed.

He's a baseball freak. He went to every baseball camp and school he could find as a kid, and his father even tried to hire Rick Peterson as a private coach when he was 17. For his six full years in the major leagues, he leads all pitchers in games started because he loves the game. In those six full years, he is third in innings and fourth in wins because he is the model of responsibility and accountability. He prepares diligently each winter for the next season and takes the four days between starts as if he were cramming for a physics final.

That is why Scott Boras was able to get him seven years and $126 million. "He's only 28," says Giants owner Peter Magowan, "and he doesn't miss a start. That stands for something."

As we should all celebrate the elections of Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn to the Hall of Fame for their reliability, so Zito should have folks tipping their caps to him. Are there concerns? Of course. Seven years, $126M? Zito's hits per nine innings have increased from 6.2 to 8.6 since he was a rookie, and where his 2000-2002 ERA was 3.04, it was up to 4.05 the last three years.

But now Zito is out of the American League, and will be on a team that plays more than 100 games in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, all great pitchers' parks. Where from 1993 through 2003 the Giants had the third-best record in the game after the Yankees and Braves, they have had two straight losing seasons and had to reconstruct; Magowan knows that Zito will be the face of the franchise this winter -- and that face is familiar to everyone in the Bay Area.

Zito's work and personal relationships with other young pitchers in Oakland make the Giants believe that he will be immensely helpful to the new generation of San Francisco arms: Matt Cain, Noah Lowry and Jonathan Sanchez. "We believe," says Magowan, "that with Barry, we can compete in the National League West. He makes that much of a difference."

The Giants also need Barry Bonds, reportedly on a very tough workout regimen, to be as healthy as he appears. While the government tries to nail Bonds on perjury charges, the feeling throughout baseball is that lawyers will tie up the 2003 test results in court long enough that Bonds or anyone else would not be indicted before the season, and once the season opens that no indictment would keep someone from playing out the season.

Is Zito worth $126M to the Giants? Who knows. Every time a Daisuke Matsuzaka, Gil Meche, Vicente Padilla or anyone else signs, we hear the gnashing of teeth.

The easy thing is to criticize someone else's decision. Ten years ago, Barry Zito wasn't worth $300,000.

This is from Peter Gammons. Say what you want about this contract but given the money that has been dished out the last 2 offseasons....Zito's money is well worth it.

Time Magazine "Person" of the Year

Congratulations, You Won

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20061217_congratulations_you_won/

Posted on Dec 17, 2006

Time announced its “person of the year” on Saturday, dissing everyone from Ahmadinejad to Pelosi in order to declare “you” the winner. Don’t you feel special? Specifically, the magazine highlighted websites including YouTube, Wikipedia and MySpace for “bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter.”

---

Time:
But look at 2006 through a different lens and you’ll see another story, one that isn’t about conflict or great men. It’s a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It’s about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people’s network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It’s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.
The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It’s not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It’s a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it’s really a revolution.
And we are so ready for it. We’re ready to balance our diet of predigested news with raw feeds from Baghdad and Boston and Beijing. You can learn more about how Americans live just by looking at the backgrounds of YouTube videos—those rumpled bedrooms and toy-strewn basement rec rooms—than you could from 1,000 hours of network television.
Read more

time.com

---

Previous Winners:

• 1927: Charles Lindbergh (1902–1974) (first person chosen)
• 1928: Walter Chrysler (1875–1940)
• 1929: Owen Young (1874–1962)
• 1930: Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) (first non-American and first non-white person)
• 1931: Pierre Laval (1883–1945)
• 1932: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945)
• 1933: Hugh Johnson (1882–1942)
• 1934: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945) (2nd time)
• 1935: Haile Selassie I (1892–1975)
• 1936: Wallis Simpson (1896–1986) (first female chosen)
• 1937: Chiang Kai-Shek (1887–1975) and Soong May-ling (1898–2003) (first couple chosen)
• 1938: Adolf Hitler (1889–1945)
• 1939: Joseph Stalin (1879–1953)
• 1940: Winston Churchill (1874–1965)
• 1941: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945) (3rd time)
• 1942: Joseph Stalin (1879–1953) (2nd time)
• 1943: George Marshall (1880–1959)
• 1944: Dwight Eisenhower (1890–1969)
• 1945: Harry Truman (1884–1972)
• 1946: James F. Byrnes (1879–1972)
• 1947: George Marshall (1880–1959) (2nd time)
• 1948: Harry Truman (1884–1972) (2nd time)
• 1949: Winston Churchill (1874–1965) (2nd time) (Man of the Half-Century)
• 1950: The American Fighting-Man (first abstract chosen)
• 1951: Mohammed Mossadegh (1882–1967)
• 1952: Queen Elizabeth II (b. 1926)
• 1953: Konrad Adenauer (1876–1967)
• 1954: John Dulles (1888–1959)
• 1955: Harlow Curtice (1893–1962)
• 1956: Hungarian Freedom Fighter
• 1957: Nikita Khrushchev (1894–1971)
• 1958: Charles De Gaulle (1890–1970)
• 1959: Dwight Eisenhower (1890–1969) (2nd time)
• 1960: U.S. scientists (represented by Linus Pauling, Isidor Rabi, Edward Teller, Adam Fisher, Donald A. Glaser, Willard Libby, Robert Woodward, Charles Draper, William Shockley, Emilio Segre, John Enders, Charles Townes, George Beadle, James Van Allen and Edward Purcell)
• 1961: John F. Kennedy (1917–1963)
• 1962: Pope John XXIII (1881–1963)
• 1963: Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968)
• 1964: Lyndon Johnson (1908–1973)
• 1965: William Westmoreland (1914–2005)
• 1966: The Generation Twenty-Five and Under
• 1967: Lyndon Johnson (1908–1973) (2nd time)
• 1968: Apollo 8 Astronauts Frank Borman (b. 1928), Jim Lovell (b. 1928), William Anders (b. 1933)
• 1969: The Middle Americans
• 1970: Willy Brandt (1913–1992)
• 1971: Richard Nixon (1913–1994)
• 1972: Richard Nixon (1913–1994) (2nd time) and Henry Kissinger (b. 1923)
• 1973: John Sirica (1904–1992)
• 1974: King Faisal (1906–1975)
• 1975: American Women (represented by Betty Ford, Carla Hills, Ella Grasso, Barbara Jordan, Susie Sharp, Jill Conway, Billy Jean King, Susan Brownmiller, Addie Wyatt, Kathleen Byerly, Carol Sutton and Alison Cheek)
• 1976: Jimmy Carter (b. 1924)
• 1977: Anwar Sadat (1918–1981)
• 1978: Deng Xiaoping (1904–1997)
• 1979: Ayatollah Khomeini (1902–1989)
• 1980: Ronald Reagan (1911–2004)
• 1981: Lech Wałęsa (b. 1943)
• 1982: The Computer (first non-human abstract chosen)
• 1983: Ronald Reagan (1911–2004) (2nd time) and Yuri Andropov (1914–1984)
• 1984: Peter Ueberroth (b. 1937)
• 1985: Deng Xiaoping (1904–1997) (2nd time)
• 1986: Corazón Aquino (b. 1933)
• 1987: Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (b. 1931)
• 1988: Endangered Earth (Planet of the Year)
• 1989: Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (b. 1931) (Man of the Decade)
• 1990: George H. W. Bush (b. 1924) (The Two George Bushes)
• 1991: Ted Turner (b. 1938)
• 1992: Bill Clinton (b. 1946)
• 1993: The Peacemakers: Nelson Mandela (b. 1918), F.W. de Klerk (b. 1936), Yasser Arafat (1929–2004), and Yitzhak Rabin (1922–1995)
• 1994: Pope John Paul II (1920–2005)
• 1995: Newt Gingrich (b. 1943)
• 1996: David Ho (b. 1952)
• 1997: Andy Grove (b. 1936)
• 1998: Bill Clinton (b. 1946) (2nd time) and Kenneth Starr (b. 1946)
• 1999: Jeffrey P. Bezos (b. 1964)
• 2000: George W. Bush (b. 1946)
• 2001: Rudolph Giuliani (b. 1944)
• 2002: The Whistleblowers: Cynthia Cooper of Worldcom (b. 1963), Sherron Watkins of Enron (b. 1959), and Coleen Rowley of the FBI (b. 1954)
• 2003: The American Soldier
• 2004: George W. Bush (b. 1946) (2nd time)
• 2005: The Good Samaritans: Bono (b. 1960), Bill Gates (b. 1955), and Melinda Gates (b. 1964)
• 2006: You^[2]

Knicks vs Nuggets Brawl

Everyone knows Carmelo is gonna come out of this but who the hell doe Mardy Collins think he is? What a cowardly foul that was. The Knicks are the biggest joke in sports right now. They're losing by however many points and about 30 seconds before the brawl starts Isiah is seen laughing on the sidelines. If Isiah gets to finish the year as coach....I'd be shocked. One has to wonder what Dolan was thinking watching that image. Should the Nuggets have taken their starters out a few minutes earlier? Maybe. But as the play was developing you could see 3 Nuggets get up off the bench on their way to the scorers table when the foul happened. Apparently Karl and Larry Brown are very close and some people believe that's the reason Karl left the starters in.

Zakaria: What Bush needs is a therapist.

Link

Football Hurdle

I think I saw on CNN that this was somewhere in Texas and this was one of 8 TDs for the kid.

CNN LINKS BARACK OBAMA TO AXIS OF EVIL

Now I usually like these pieces Jeff Greenfield does for CNN bit I'd hardly call this "reporting." You can see the GOP Ad machine at work already with the name thing.

Barack Obama teases run for President on Monday Night Football

Barack Obama on MNF

I'm guessing this was the opening to MNF this week. I did not watch this live.

Dr. Mohammed Yunus on Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Dr. Mohammed Yunus on Daily Show with Jon Stewart

The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
Link

John Hodgman explains why candidates are refusing to admit they're running for President

Daily Show - Dec. 4, 2006 - John Hodgman

John Hodgman explains why candidates are refusing to admit they're running for President.

The Rumsfeld Memo

Daily Show - Dec. 4, 2006 - The Rumsfeld Memo


Link

Daily Show 7/13/2006