The 2006 Unsweet 16 ... Continued

UPDATE: To vote in the 2007 Unsweet Sixteen
click right here

College basketball's Sweet Sixteen begins tonight, and despite my poor advice in round one, I'll try again tonight. Personally, I'm pulling for Bradley over the one-seed Memphis (Go Missouri Valley Conference) and UCLA in one of the two late games. But while the sweet sixteen gets widdled down to the final four by the end of the weekend, the "Unsweet Sixteen" has raged on for about five years now. Unfortunately for all Americans, we'll have to wait until November to start knocking competitors out of the tournament (or they end up in jail, whatever happens first). Josh and I reviewed half of the brackets last week, and will run down another one right now ... the House bracket.

Tim: We'll start in the House bracket, where Mitchell Wade has a serious rooting interest in both of the matchups. One of the GOP's favorite congresswomen from Florida, Katherine Harris, is taking on Tom "the exterminator" DeLay.

Josh: How corrupt do you have to be to get awarded a higher seed than Duke Cunningham in this bracket?

Tim: I think this bracket is probably the toughest of the lot, you really gotta be something special to make your way into the final four among this group.

Josh: I disagree, totally. I mean, look over at the "Pioneers and Rangers" bracket... Two of the four have either been convicted/confessed to crimes and/or awaiting their prison sentences. And the third, Tom Noe, is facing fifty-three felony counts that could carry up to 175 years in prison. That's to take nothing away from the astonishing level of corruption among the group in the House bracket... it's just, they are like "futures stars" to a group of Hall of Famers in the Pioneer bracket.

Tim: Alright, back to the games. DeLay vs. Harris

Josh: DeLay, in a rout. Tough to beat "48 visits to golf clubs and resorts with lush fairways; 100 flights aboard company planes; 200 stays at hotels, many world-class; and 500 meals at restaurants, some averaging nearly $200 for a dinner for two."

Tim: That is tough to beat. Harris is trying her best though, vowing to sell off all of her earthly posessions to fund a Senate bid in Florida, and then comparing herself to various characters in the Bible.

Josh: Yeah, but that's not corrupt, that's just ridiculous.

Tim: Well, I didn't mention the fact that she received illegal campaign contributions from Mitchell Wade and then attempted to get him earmarks while a member of the House.

Josh: But still, it's no Tom DeLay.

Tim: Indeed. DeLay moves on.

Tim: The second matchup pits the Duke Cunningham against Ohio's Bob Ney. This game was originally scheduled to be played at the Carrier Dome in Syracuse but had to be moved to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in San Diego California, outdoor court #3, in order to accomodate Cunningham.

Josh: I thought you said that if you were in jail, that was the end of your tournament run?

Tim: Well, I guess the selection committee thought Duke's corruption is so prolific, they let him in as a legacy ... almost like a lifetime achievement award.

Josh: If anyone deserves it, it's Duke. Credit where credit is due for his "bribery menu."

Tim: Tough draw though for the convicted criminal, he gets Bob Ney, AKA "Representative #1."

Josh: And maybe Ney can conjure up the same kind of luck he had in a London casino when he turned $100 into $34,000 during two hands of a "three card game of chance."

Tim: What are the odds of that actually happening?

Josh: At best, about 550 to 1. Ironically, that's about the likelihood of his story being true.

Tim: You know, despite the heavy odds against Ney and home court advantage for Cunningham, I am kind of leaning towards Reprsentative #1 in this game.

Josh: Me too, I'm not convinced that Cunningham will be emotionally ready to take the floor tonight after watching all his goodies auctioned off by the government yesterday.

Tim: And again, who can forget Ney's golf trips to Scottland.

Josh: Yeah, but he says he was "duped" by Abramoff.

Tim: Again, about as likely as him winning $34,000 in two hands. Besides, how can you not rally behind a congressman celebrated in an email from Jack Abramoff to Mike Scanlon that read, "Just met with Ney!!! We're f'ing gold!!!! He's going to do Tigua."

Josh: I can't believe I am about to say this, but yea for Ney. I think he'll advance.

Tim: I'm with you. Plus that alleviates the headache of having to host two rounds in a federal prison.

Tim: Alright, one more bracket to go, but those games are played tomorrow night. We'll have the rundown before then.

Comments (1) «

I finally found the article I was talking about last weekend:

Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - "Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day," President Bush said recently.

Another time he said, "Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."

"There are some really decent people," the president said earlier this year, "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people."

Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.

When the president starts a sentence with "some say" or offers up what "some in Washington" believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.

The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.

He typically then says he "strongly disagrees" — conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.

Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed "critics," is just as problematic.

Because the "some" often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, "'some' suggests a number much larger than is actually out there," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as "a bizarre kind of double talk" that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_s_straw_men

It's taken a long time, but we are on to him. He can take his snake oil act across the country, but now he's going to have to explain who those "some people" are. In most cases, they are a figment of his or Rove's imagination ... and they are going to be called on it.

There is a growing segment of the public and even the cowardly media willing to stand up to this propaganda technique. No more free ride for the word spinners in the White House.

1

SandyH on March 23, 2006 at 06:45 PM

« Hide Comments

Comments are now closed for this entry.