« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »
January 31, 2007
Support the troops?
Via Free Republic, here's an excerpt from of a letter in today's Boston Globe:
MY HUSBAND recently returned from active duty for Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has been puzzled by people who speak out -- to his face, mind you -- against our government's plan to increase troops or increase funding for troops but who, in the same breath, say, "But I support the troops."
Recently, he very quietly responded, "Really, that's great. Exactly how do you support the troops?" The person was caught off guard and had no answer.
Read the whole thing. FReepers are asking themselves what, exactly, anti-war folks mean when they say they "Support the troops". My take: It means, "I do not support the troops, but the Left's Viet Nam lesson is that they should pretend to support the troops rather than throw batteries at them, both literal and figurative. So I am pretending to support the troops with this legalistic disclaimer."
The letter goes on to make some suggestions as to how to actually "support the troops."
Posted by bill at 01:34 PM | Comments (0)
Taking on multiculturalism: "Our differences are not what bind us together as a people"
Writing for the UK Telegraph, Zia Haider Rahman makes a point that many in the UK finally seem to be embracing - that "multiculturalism," in most of its manifestations and the UK's "intoxicated infatuation with differences" is "doing more harm than good."
Of course, US conservatives have been making the same point for years, attacking the destructive liberal ideal that "my culture is more important than American culture." But as a human rights attorney with a distinguished resume, Rahman has unique credibility in tackling ths issue, and this column suggests the disgust for multiculturalism may be reaching critical mass. If so, maybe there's a chance the UK, in 20 or so years, will recognize itself. Just maybe.
UPDATE - As I was writing this, GF emailed this (click on "Avis Public" at the top right then scroll down to the thumbnail document and click on "Download the english version titled 'Standards'"). The town of Herouxville, in Quebec, Canada, published "Standards" "from the social life and habits & customs" "so that future residents can integrate socially more easily." Their cultures include, e.g., not stoning women and not throwing acid on them, and decorating what they call "Christmas" trees.
Posted by bill at 09:27 AM | Comments (1)
Blankley: There is no "Third Way"
Tony Blankley delivers another gem, exposing the lie that we can somehow exit Iraq without defeat or victory:
the current mentality in Washington -- to pretend that there is a third way between victory and defeat -- is morally despicable. Washington politicians of both parties are trying to salve their consciences for the ignominy of accepting defeat by fooling either themselves or the public into believing they are doing otherwise.
Well worth a read.
Posted by GadsdenFlag at 09:13 AM | Comments (0)
January 30, 2007
Just because
Aplogies for my inability to post anything. Alas, I have to make a living. In the meantime, I thought these two were worth posting:
and
Posted by bill at 11:13 AM | Comments (0)
January 25, 2007
Johnny, we hardly knew ye...
...But we know you served in VietNam.
John Kerry isn't running for President again, much to the chagrin of many a Republican who'd sincerely hoped he would. Worth noting that in announcing the big decision, Kerry couldn't help mentioning, just one. last. time. that he served in VietNam.
No kidding?
(Factoid of the day - the phrase, "we hardly knew ye" is traced to the Irish folk song, "Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye," which is believed to be the precursor to the American Civil War tune, "When Johnny Comes Marching Home." I know this because it says so on the Internets.)
Posted by bill at 09:36 AM | Comments (1)
January 23, 2007
Nominee for the Darwin Awards?
There's lost, there's hopelessly lost, and then there's Damon Mootoo, who meandered around Queens for 5 days in the bitter January cold. Reportedly, Mootoo "became hopelessly lost for five days after going for a walk." "I want to go home," he said after his ordeal was over. "I'm thinking about going back to Guyana."
Wonder if his wife believes him.
Posted by bill at 07:07 PM | Comments (1)
George Wallace would've been so proud
Segregation. It's the new affirmative action. 
Via Hot Air:
The Congressional Black Caucus turned away a white Congressman (despite his representing huge numbers of blacks), reportedly because "several current and former members made it clear that a white lawmaker was not welcome."
Wonder whether Bill Clinton would be welcome? And do they have separate water fountains?
Posted by bill at 11:27 AM | Comments (1)
That other genocide
I meant to post something yesterday on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Alas, thanks to our local, government-enforced monopoly (mostly), I was left to choose between reliable Internet access and television. (Long story.) I chose television 24.
Yesterday, President Bush phoned in his annual, tepid "Go get 'em' to Pro-lifers in Washington, D.C. It's a nice gesture, I guess, but it's remarkable to me this is annually Bush's most visible statement on the topic.
On the other hand, Ronald Reagan embraced the Pro Life cause with clarity, and urgency. In 1983, on the 10th anniversary of Roe, Reagan wrote this article for Human Life Review: "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation." IMO, this article should be an annual read for conservatives because Reagan speaks with a clarity we rarely see anymore.
Posted by bill at 08:46 AM | Comments (0)
Relativist pokes head out of cave, goes back in
I can't put my finger on it, but I've always found CNN's Christine Amanpour to be more repulsive than your average CNN correspondent. In a thousand little ways, she seems to epitomize CNN's tiresome "citizen of everywhere" (and nowhere) theme, loyal to the vaunted "international community" above all else, and with a grating countenance to add to the abject disdain for the US. I won't say this a fair impression but I also doubt I am alone.
I was momentarily stunned today in reading the headline for Amanpour's article last week at CNN: "Amanpour: Brit radicals shock me." Despite years of skepticism and experience suggesting I was wrong, I allowed myself to believe that maybe, just maybe, Amanpour is emerging from the relativist cave, and finally recognizes the threat Islamolunatics might just present to Western civilization.
And then I read the article.
To be fair, in one sense it is apparent that Amanpour may indeed be “getting religion”: "In our investigation,” she writes, “we found shocking evidence of the bigotry, intolerance and hatred preached by some Muslim fundamentalists in the UK. We met men like Anjem Choudary of the now-banned Al-Mahajiroon extremist group, who denounces democracy and predicts Britain will be ruled by Sharia, Islamic law....He publicly distances himself from suicide bombings here in the UK, mindful of Britain's tough new anti-terrorism laws, yet we filmed him openly condoning violent Jihad abroad."
Then this: "Increasingly we found mainstream Muslims are realizing that they can no longer be quiet, but they have to stand up to have any hope of winning back the debate from the extremists who dominate it now....The question is whether they can form a critical mass of voices to finally drown out the growing ranks of extremists."
Fair points – although ones the rest of us were thinking, oh I don't know, by mid-September 2001. CNN calls it "The War Within" and seems to think their hard-nosed investigation is revealing new truths. We here in realityland call this old, old news.
More significant than CNN’s arrogance, though, is Amanpour’s lead-in to the above discussion: It's George Bush's fault. She writes: "What struck us most was how deeply the Iraq war has radicalized today's generation of young Muslims in Britain. Whether extreme or mainstream, they are angry about the war, angry that their country so devotedly follows U.S. foreign policy, angry at what they see as a worldwide war against Muslims and Islam."
Amanpour doesn’t even furrow her brow at the notion that President Bush and Iraq are responsible for Islamic fascism, which is of course the fascists’ newest and self-serving justification for all things jihad. She seemingly cannot stop herself from taking a poke at W. (In fact, in reading the article as a whole, the “Blame Bush” lead-in seems so out of place that I can’t help but wonder whether one of CNN's editors hastily popped it in. It’s stock copy at CNN, anyway.)
Western democracy should be praying in unison that more people at least reach the point Amanpour has reached and recognize Islamolunatics actually do want to kill all of us. That would indicate progress. But let’s be practical – it’s far too much to ask for even smart folk like Amanpour to blame Islamic "anger,” if it is indeed a threat, on anything other than Bush and Iraq. Of course, it strikes many of us that Islamic young men were pretty ticked off as of 9/11/2001, just as one pre-Iraq example, but what do we know? We’re not citizens of the world.
Posted by bill at 08:38 AM | Comments (0)
January 22, 2007
Anyone have a light?
Tom L. chimes on on John Mellencamp's latest:
I hate this insufferable, no-talent assclown.
Then those "Our Country" commercials only go and make things worse. "Our Country" is about hippies and Nixon resigning?
Well, here he is, John Cougar Mellencamp, self-styled "everyman" bemoaning this country's plight at the hands of "Corporate America" -- with his supermodel wife by his side, as he slums in a suite at the Carlyle Hotel.
If anyone else is up to it, I'd like to send a couple of crates if non-filtered Lucky Strikes to Mellencamp. The more he smokes, the better for all of us.
Posted by bill at 03:13 PM | Comments (0)
SNL Skewers Hill
"I think most Democrats know me...they understand my support for the war was always insincere."
This is one of the funnier skits I've seen lately on a show that's become mostly unwatchable.
Posted by bill at 09:02 AM | Comments (0)
January 18, 2007
Olber the top
It's been a long time since I've had any interest in MSNBC, if I ever did, and beyond Keith Olbermann's impressive Sportscenter duet with Dan Patrick I've never cared much about Olbermann, either. (Most of America seems to agree with me, at least if ratings are any guide.) But Olbermann's tirade Tuesday over the first four hours of 24 this season (he thinks screenwriters for 24 are hatching a sinister, pro-Republican plot) almost made me laugh out loud.
(More witty banter below the fold.)
It’s decidedly un-funny, of course, that any entertainment either (a) depicting terrorists as non-Caucasians; or (b) suggesting terrorism is a real threat, rather than a phantom one manufactured by the Bush Administration, is quickly dismissed by most media outlets as unserious and silly. This part makes me want to cry, not laugh, because it does not bode well for our country as we fight an insidious enemy in an uber-foggy war. Suffice it to say that if simple patriotism is loathsome to many people, we are truly in deep.
As the saying suggests, though, maybe it’s better to laugh instead. And Keith Olbermann seems willing to play the jester and the left’s most reliable buffoon. His outrage at 24, besides being directed at a television show, for Heaven’s sake, demonstrates the length to which this man has buried his head. But it’s laughable because it is founded on a patently, demonstrably absurd assumption – that the rest of television is – say it, Keith: “fair and balanced.”
Where to begin? The biggest problem with the idea of “media bias” is that it’s tough to prove – even if we’re limiting things to entertainment television. It’s one thing for this show or the next to portray a conservative or a Christian or a Caucasian in a negative light. That may be “unfair,” but it’s not proof of “bias” because it doesn’t rule out liberals or Muslims or favored minorities being portrayed equally unfairly the next week.
But then, reason rears its head, as does reality, and so figuring out “bias” is boils down an exercise similar to how Justice Potter Stewart famously determined what constitutes the “obscene”: we know it when we see it. And this is why we laugh and laugh at Keith Olbermann – because outside of his fantasyland, if he watched television or movies with anything other than that hell-bent disgust for Republicans, he’d know that 24 is a proverbial diamond in the rough in the war on Islamic fascism. But more importantly, if we assume Olbermann is correct that 24 is pro-American, pro-Republican, and anti-Jihadist, 24 is a liberals’ solitary dose of the hostility aimed at conservatives each and every day, on nearly every show on the tube.
On Tuesday, for example, Boston Legal spent roughly half an episode lambasting the Department of Homeland Security, and the federal “no-fly” list. The list is arbitrary and ineffective, William Shatner’s lawyer said, just before taking a few tidy shots at conservative “values” (those are a masquerade for hatred). And I don’t know if Keith Olbermann goes to the movies, but one wonders what he thinks of the reliable portrayal of Caucasian men as one or more of the following: drunk, undeservingly rich, dishonest, opportunistic, and slovenly (to name a few). Or the business world as being consumed with criminals and idiots rather than educated people simply trying to make a living.
On the flip side, keep the following adjectives in mind the next time you sit down to watch Hollywood’s newest and best: intelligent; honest; loyal; capable; and underappreciated. Then tick off a list of characters to whom those adjectives apply, and in front of you will be a list of favored minorities, illegals, Muslims, acknowledged Jihadists, and gays. (And they say liberalism isn't insulting to minorities.)
Maybe someday, someone will invest the considerable time needed to come up, once and for all, with a big list for one full season and see where the tick marks land. For now, we’ll just have to rely on our visceral response whenever a buffoon like Keith Olbermann tirades about a solitary show failing to keep up the charade – that is to say, laugh it off. After all, that’s all the jester wants or deserves.
Posted by bill at 10:44 AM | Comments (0)
January 16, 2007
He Bans, He Bans!
Last week I wrote that Ban Ki-moon, the new UN Secretary-General, might offer something a little different than his predecessors, what with being from the civilized world and all. Ban's already facing challenges, though. John Bolton explains (as only John Bolton can) that Ban might face a tough road if he's inclined to follow his instincts.
Posted by bill at 08:13 PM | Comments (0)
MSM Machiques-nations
Tom L. writes:
Here's a story from the BBC this weekend concerning the increasing number of farmer kidnappings in Venezuela. The Beeb blames the United States (of course) for these kidnappings because of the assistance we are providing to Colombia in their fight against FARC terrorists. From the story:
As the internal conflict in neighbouring Colombia has intensified due to the US-backed "Plan Colombia", more and more leftwing guerrilla and paramilitary groups are seeking respite inside Venezuela.
To help pay for their food and equipment, they resort to kidnappings and are believed to be operating hand-in-glove with local Venezuelan criminal gangs.
The so-called "paramilitary groups" (i.e. anti-FARC militia) aren't seeking "respite" in Venezuela. It is the FARC that is seeking sanctuary in Venezuela because their primary sponsor (who is curiously not mentioned in the story) rules the country. If the paramilitaries are there, it isn't to kidnap ranchers, it is to hunt down FARC who are basing themselves out of Venezuela.
The ranchers are pointing the finger at the Venezuelan National Guard, which is responsible for border security. The ranchers say the NG is scaling down its presence on the border. Again, glaringly missing from the article is the question/answer as to why the ranchers perceive this to be the case? I believe that is because the Beeb knows the answer to the question - Castro Jr. is providing aid, comfort, and arms to the FARC and has instructed the Venezuelan NG to stay out of the FARC's way. Of course, I am referring to Hugo Chavez. Also note the tone of the NG general who is in charge of security on the border. Who does he blame for the kidnappings? The ranchers!
"Some of these Colombian peasants have been treated badly by their employers or are underpaid. So naturally, some of them take revenge on their masters by plotting to kidnap them," Gen Perez said.
Yes, it's the oppressed proletariat rising up against their bourgeois's oppressors. Chavez couldn't have said it better himself.
But again, I am struck at how Chavez name is missing from this story when the Beeb and "Old Media" in the West takes delight in reporting all of his anti-US posturing. I guess better that than to report his role in funding bloodshed and the overthrow of his neighbor's government by narco-marxist terrorists. I'm sure the general thought in pressrooms and media outlets these days is "Hey, a cold snap is coming. Who is Citgo (i.e. Chavez) giving fuel away to this week anyways?"
Posted by bill at 02:29 PM | Comments (0)
Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night...
If there is one thing we Americans can count on (other than Jack Bauer, who had something of a setback last night) it is Amsterdam. Whenever the US reaches the point where normal people look at their local daily paper and think, "We are screwed beyond expression", word arrives from the reliably squalid Dutch that things over there are much, much worse. And how. Today's installment is news that Amsterdam are set to erect a bronze statue in the honor of prostitutes.
Read that sentence again, America. It could be worse.
Posted by bill at 01:40 PM | Comments (0)
January 15, 2007
Jack Bauer wears Citizen Journal underwear
So I missed 24 last night but heard Drudge's radio show as it aired. MD was discussing the possibility that tonight's show will feature a nuke detonating in the US. The gist of the discussion was whether 24 should be doing this. I'd like to cast my "Yay" vote.
First, I'll knock down a strawman - the hypocrites who criticize 24 don't seem to mind when the likes of Independence Day incinerate the White House, Manhattan, etc. (for the benefit of the 'new world order'); or when this sort of thing happens in The Day After Tomorrow (for the benefit of environmental crisis mongering). (Ad hominem attacks are useful to half-assed commentators like me.)
Second, we need reminding once in a while. Other than 24, pop culture seems to be largely of the opinion that (1) terrorists are caucasians; and (2) the threat of Islamic terrorism is mostly a figment of Karl Rove's imagination. Nonsense, of course, and if Fox is the only outfit with the stones to dramatize Islamic terrorism, so be it. In economics, liberals are fond the idea that government must regulate "market failures." In this war, maybe private citizens need to correct government failures.
Third, it seems to me the blue media's perception (and reviews) of 24 are a function of one single issue: whether or not the bad guys are Islamic. Last year, the show reverted to the Die Hard/Air Force One etc. etc. fantasy that, notwithstanding 30+ years of evidence to the contrary, the US is actually being targeted by fanatical Eastern Europeans. The critics raved. The season before that, it was Muslims, and the critics hated it. 24 is among the only arm of pop culture that's willing to deal in the uncomfy realm of reality.
Kick ass, Jack.
Posted by bill at 06:45 PM | Comments (0)
January 11, 2007
On the surge, and Iraq
Prior to the President's speech last night, Tom L. responded to an email of mine with his thoughts about the speech, and more generally about Iraq. If you're growing ambivalent about Iraq (as I am to some extent) and what we're doing, this is worth a read.
Posted by bill at 09:20 AM | Comments (0)
January 10, 2007
Thinking about Ban Ki-moon
My article on the new UN Secretary-General was published at the American Thinker today. Would love to hear readers' feedback - fortunately, the comments section is free of charge on Wednesdays.
Posted by bill at 08:53 AM | Comments (0)
January 09, 2007
The Democrats first 100 days: Priorites!
Speaking of Democratic constituencies, it worth noting that the House bill today, described as "Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007," specifically repeals Section 111(d) of and Transportation Security Act, which prohibited TSA workers from engaging in collective bargaining. This will of course have two effects: (1) More votes for Democrats; and (2) lazy, incompetent TSA workers will be afforded job protections.
This is what America elected in November.
Posted by bill at 08:45 PM | Comments (0)
Idiots, but loyally Democratic Idiots
How typical that a Democrat wants idiots to vote.
Do we really want to make it easier for idiots and the insane to vote, even if those terms are no longer politically correct? Politicians 150 years ago realized that it wasn't a great idea to have profoundly retarded or crazy people voting. Now, Democrats want everybody to vote--illegal aliens, dead people, stupid people, convicted felons--everybody! Why? Because they'll probably vote Democrat!
Voting should be made harder, not easier. I'd like to see, at a minimum, a requirement that all voters must pass the same citizenship test given to immigrants. And they should be able to fog a mirror. Too bad if that hurts the turnout for the Democrats from the graveyard bloc.
Posted by GadsdenFlag at 04:07 PM | Comments (0)
Catching Mitt
Judging by his $6.5 million bonanza yesterday, Mitt Romney is about set to make his splash on the 2008 White House run. Is Romney as conservative as he sounds? Or a closeted liberal/John Kerry opportunist? The American Thinker runs two articles on Romney today, each taking opposite sides of the issue. Selwyn Duke, citing various flips and flops on abortion, taxes and gay rights, and the Governor's virtual-Hillary-Care solution to health care, says Romney's a garden variety Massachusetts liberal.
Au contraire, says Amy Goldstein. She attributes Romney's transformation to getting older and wiser, not to his interest in becoming President. "One is not endowed with wisdom, but has to come by it through life experience," she writes. "Leadership involves learning from those life experiences, adapting one's outlook and applying the learned lessons going forward. That is the process of political maturation, and Governor Romney had gone through that very process."
My own (admittedly cynical) view is that everything in politics is calculated. On both sides. All the time. Here, any jury would regard Romney's earlier comments as more reliable, since there's little reason to believe an ulterior motive was at work. Can't quite say that about Romney's warm-up for a White House run, aye? So I think Goldstein comes across as a bit of a naif.
Posted by bill at 09:28 AM | Comments (0)
January 08, 2007
The Bush tax increase?
Robert Novak says "the largest tax increase in US history" is very possible.
Barf.
Posted by bill at 02:44 PM | Comments (0)
Monday paleo-con
Pat Buchanan's name is mud in many conservative circles, partly because he's so stridently opposed the war in Iraq and has joined "neo-con conspiracy" theories along the way. But Buchanan may be one of the few conservatives who'd even raise a much-needed eyebrow at news this weekend that Israel is planning a nuclear strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
The wisdom of such a thing is debatable. So is pre-emption, especially for Israel. What isn't defensible is the blind loyalty many American conservatives show to Israel. Much of the the reason Israelis can be so bold with Iran is that the US stands ready to deal with the ramifications and pre-emption by Tel Aviv would be paid for at least in part by American blood.
Enough is enough. Like South Korea, which accused the US of "meddling" in the Korean peninsula by securing sanctions against N. Korea, Israel should be made to understand that US backing isn't limitless. Conservatives are dismissive of any criticism of Israel and are too quick to fling the "anti Semite" stink bomb. But why, again, does our potential to be drawn into nuclear war depend on what Israel decides is best for it? Is everything that's good for Israel good for the US?
Posted by bill at 01:28 PM | Comments (0)
January 05, 2007
Friday mutation
Via Gadsden Flag: "A calf with two faces was born Dec. 27 at Heldreth Dairy Farm" in Rural Retreat, Virginia:
The animal is normal from its tail until its unusually large head. The calf breathes out of two noses and has two tongues, which move independently, according to Heldreth. There appears to be a single socket containing two eyes where the heads split.
As if that's not enough, the NY Post reports a related story. It seems that photographers in West Hollywood snapped this photo recently of the elusive Four-Chinned Brittney:
This photo was evidently taken along the express route to Skankville.
Posted by bill at 05:11 PM | Comments (0)
A crime against the people of Iraq
It's been hard to convince myself to worry too much about the "dignity" of Saddam Hussein's death. The women and children he murdered weren't afforded it when they were tortured and dumped into pits, and part of me thinks Saddam went too quickly and too painlessly. That's awful and un-Christian, to say the least, but in one sense it was all to easy for Saddam. It always is.
I also recognize the Middle East results in strange bedfellows, including the kind of gents we might not want babysitting our kids. I also recognize the American jihadist media was more than happy to exaggerate the "outrage" after the execution, and the "backlash" -- to portray this as one more thing Bush did wrong in Iraq.
Still, I don't know how anyone could look at the ham-handed, DIY video and defend that imagery. When I first saw the video I found myself wondering how Americans were supposed to support a war being fought for the thugs who brought Saddam to the gallows. This isn't exactly the picture of a "free and democratic Iraq" President Bush has tried to paint. In fact, it's that other picture -- the one offered by the John Kerrys who are just itching to say "civil war." (In fact, had the Dems not been in the midst of gussying up their image for the new Congress, I have to think we'd have heard more from them.)
So after a circus trial, and a circus execution, the "new" Iraq looks a lot like the "old" Iraq, and when people think about Saddam Hussein they won't think about the children, and the horrific nightmare it must've been to live in Saddam's Iraq. They'll think of him being taunted by thugs up the stairs to the big rope. That, as Charles Krauthammer says, is a crime against the "new" Iraq -- meaning, the people who now look ahead to years of living under a new set of thugs. And even if it means agreeing with John Kerry, it's plenty of good reason to wonder what, exactly, we're hoping to defend by sending in more American troops.
Posted by bill at 10:13 AM | Comments (2)
January 03, 2007
Heather has two mommies...
But at least she's not in Candada. An Ontario court ruled this week that one kid can have two mommies plus one (exhausted?) pop:
A five-year-old Canadian boy can have two mothers and a father, an Ontario court ruled this week in a landmark case that redefines the meaning of family and examines the rights of parents in same-sex relationships.
In a ruling released on Tuesday, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the female partner of the child’s biological mother could be legally recognized as the boy’s third parent.
Well, then. They're into it.
Posted by bill at 04:32 PM | Comments (0)
And God Smote Thee
God is talking to Pat Robertson again and as usual, His message isn't a happy one. This time it's "mass killings" (your summer travel plans are safe, though: God said the carnage won't happen until after September). As the AP is pleased to note, Robertson likes making predictions and then crediting himself with having been correct when it's apparent he's just a shameless windbag.
This isn't the kind of site where you'll find gratuitous pokes at Christians. In fact, quite the contrary. But Robertson's meanderings are more than fair game, just because.
Posted by bill at 09:18 AM | Comments (0)
January 02, 2007
1987 Fiesta Bowl - was that 20 years ago already?
As a half-assed writer, I appreciate when major outlets like ESPN publish good writing by freelancers. I am also an avid Penn State fan. So I was doubly tickled today by Michael Weinreb's piece looking back on the 1987 Fiesta Bowl. Penn State beat Miami in that game, 14-10 ("the best game ever," as hyperbole-prone ESPN puts it). Weinreb re-creates not only the insanity of the hoopla of the hype leading to the game (UM's Battle fatigues, Jimmy Johnson's hairspray, etc.) but its lasting effect on the mega-glitz of today's BCS.
One issue PSU fans might have is that the 20th anniversary of the game is also a reminder it's been 20 years since our last national championship (let's not even discuss 1994).
UPDATE: Time Mag's January 1987 write-up is worth a look.
Posted by bill at 05:27 PM | Comments (0)
