Kanye West doesn’t care about purple people

      1 Comment on Kanye West doesn’t care about purple people

My friend Marcelo, a fellow Trojan, posted this on Facebook and Flickr Saturday:

Heh. [Bumped. -ed.]

P.S. Washington is now ranked in the AP poll — at #24 — though not in the slower-to-adjust coaches poll, in which they’re effectively #31 (sixth in “others receiving votes”). I’ve gotta agree with the AP on this one: the Huskies have both a “better loss” (to LSU) and a higher-quality win (over USC) than just about any other one-loss team out there. How are Ohio State, with wins over Navy (barely) & Toledo and a loss to USC, or Oklahoma, with wins over Idaho State & Tulsa and a loss to BYU, more accomplished than Washington at this point? They’re not, of course, but the pollsters simply believe they’re better than the Huskies (as do I, let’s be honest), and so preseason expectations keep the purple people down. For now.

But let’s see what UW can do. If they can win at Stanford and at Notre Dame in the next two weeks, there will be no excuse for not taking the Huskies seriously. Personally, I hope they go 7-2 the rest of the way — losing only to the Irish, and one other Pac-10 team — and get to play in the Rose Bowl. Meanwhile I hope the Trojans win out, which would allow them to claim the mantle of “co-champions” with the Huskies in this scenario (though they’d lose the tiebreaker), a locution that would be helpful for their title-game argument. If they don’t reach the title game, though, UW’s ticket to the Rose Bowl would prevent the Trojans from having to play some lame-ass Big Ten team in Pasadena again; instead, they’d get shipped to the Sugar or Fiesta or Orange, possibly to face an SEC or Big 12 opponent.

First things first, though. Beat the Cougars! And, if we fans are permitted to look past the worst* BCS-conference team in the country: BEAT THE BEARS.

*Wazzu is ranked #122 in the country by Jeff Sagarin, ten spots lower than their closest “competitor” from a BCS league, #112 Northwestern. (The other BCS teams in triple digits, if you’re wondering, are #101 Syracuse, #107 Vanderbilt, and #108 Virginia. #97 Colorado and #98 Maryland are knocking on the door.) There are 21 Division I-AA teams ranked ahead of the Cougars, and just 19 I-A teams below them — mostly the dregs of the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA.

Sources say Colorado terrorism suspect may be part of 8-person, multi-city cell

      Comments Off on Sources say Colorado terrorism suspect may be part of 8-person, multi-city cell

There are some reports suggesting that authorities may have just scratched the surface of the alleged Denver-based NYC terrorism plot:

ABC News reported Sunday that federal investigators are looking at the possibility eight more people may be involved in the ongoing terror investigation centering on Aurora and New York City.

Four may have ties to Colorado, the other four to New York.

ABC’s Chief Investigative Correspondent, Brian Ross, tells 7News the eight could be part of the same cell, but operating in two different areas.

Late Saturday, the FBI arrested 24-year-old Najibullah Zazi of Aurora … Ross said Zazi is believed to be one of just two people who may know the players on both sides of the cell. The other person is a man believed to have accompanied Zazi to Pakistan in 2008. Ross said investigators are concentrating their search for him in Colorado.

Frankly, I’m still not sure quite how seriously to take this. Cue the New York Times:

The central figure in what authorities describe as a widening inquiry into a possible plot to detonate explosives in the United States had been trained in weapons and explosives in Pakistan and, according to court papers released Sunday, had made nine pages of handwritten notes on how to make and handle bombs.

The court papers, released after the arrests in Colorado of Najibullah Zazi and his father, as well as that of an imam in Queens, showed that during a search in New York of the younger Mr. Zazi’s rental car on Sept. 11, agents found a laptop computer containing an image of the notes. According to a criminal complaint, the notes “contain formulations and instructions regarding the manufacture and handling of initiating explosives, main explosives charges, explosives detonators and components of a fusing system.”

Court papers also show that in F.B.I. interviews, Mr. Zazi, 24, told agents that during a 2008 trip to Pakistan, he attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at a Qaeda training camp in a tribal area.

The arrests late Saturday indicated the case was rapidly accelerating and provided for the first time — in a sometimes confusing week of events — an explanation of why authorities have focused on the men, even as it shed little light about the alleged plot still under investigation in the United States, Pakistan and elsewhere.

“It is important to note that we have no specific information regarding the timing, location or target of any planned attack,” David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security, said early Sunday.

Veteran counterterrorism officials said they were convinced the plot was potentially serious, based largely on their emerging suspicions about Mr. Zazi, his training in explosives, his travel to Pakistan tribal areas where Al Qaeda is influential and the apparent ease of his movements within the United States.

But these officials, in Washington, New York and Denver, acknowledge that they could be overstating Mr. Zazi’s significance because they know little about his precise intentions and may never know completely what he might have been planning. But as the investigation has progressed there appear to be few doubters within the government.

Once upon a time, that might have been enough for me, but after the various instances since 9/11 where the government has announced the unraveling of a major terror plot — only to see subsequent developments make the “plot” seem like a lot less than meets the eye — I guess I’m a little gunshy when it comes to believing what the authorities say about this stuff. Which I suppose is good: skepticism of government is healthy, and citizens are entitled to a genuine presumption of innocence (not just lip service paid thereto).

Continue reading →

The Pac-10: it’s a WAR!

      12 Comments on The Pac-10: it’s a WAR!

When unranked Washington stunned #3 USC on Saturday, it may have seemed like a bolt out of the blue (to everyone except Stewart Mandel, at least), but it’s actually the continuation of a longstanding — and, for Trojan fans, all-too-familiar — pattern.

USC Washington Football

Even though USC regularly plays in tough, heavily hyped intersectional games, BCS bowls, etc., the Trojans simply do not lose those games. Indeed, they do not lose to non-conference foes, period (unless Vince Young is on the opponent’s roster). Yet they routinely lose 1 to 2 games per year against Pac-10 teams, usually unheralded ones, usually on the road. They’ve done this in each of the six years where they’ve played in a non-title-game BCS bowl — 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2008 — and now again in 2009. Their title-game years, ’04 and ’05, in which they ran through the Pac-10 schedule undefeated, were the exception, not the rule.

Commentators love to reference the Trojans’ “dominance” in conference play — and each upset since 2006 has been cited as supposedly heralding an end to that dominance, yet the “dominance” talking point always reasserts itself the next time USC loses. Admittedly, at some level, seven straight Pac-10 titles don’t lie. But the truth is, USC has now lost eight games in conference play since 2002, during a span when they’ve lost just once to a nonconference foe (Texas), despite repeatedly playing top-notch national teams in high-profile games. Six of those eight conference losses have occurred since 2006, during which time USC has not lost a single nonconference game! Moreover, the Trojans have spread the wealth: they’ve lost to 7 of the conference’s other 9 teams at least once since 2002. Talk about balance!

As I pointed out in my “Fear the Huskies?” post, it has been a Pac-10 road loss that has prevented USC from reaching the BCS title game in 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. And now maybe 2009-10, too. If the Pac-10 were truly the “Pac-1,” as some folks contend, the Trojans would probably own four or five BCS titles by now, instead of just one.

Moreover, in all but one case, the team upsetting the Trojans came into the game unranked. The pundits tonight are citing this pattern as a sign of weakness for USC, an error the Trojans keep making year after year. And that’s fair. But, if those pundits are going to be consistent in how they treat the conferences, they need to also acknowledge what it says about the Pac-10.

Commentators love to cite every upset of Florida or LSU or Auburn or Alabama as proof that the SEC is the nation’s “toughest conference from top to bottom” — a veritable “war” in which “anybody can beat you,” so you have to bring your ‘A’ game “week in and week out.” Maybe so. But doesn’t USC’s experience over the last seven years prove that this is also true of the Pac-10?

Again: the Trojans have gone 22-1 (.957) against BCS and BCS-level competition since their loss to Kansas State in early 2002, including wins over powerhouse teams from the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten and ACC. But, in that same time frame, they’ve gone “just” 52-8 (.867) against the Pac-10.

Now, 52-8 is a very good record, of course. But it’s a lot less impressive than the Trojans’ record against teams like Auburn and Arkansas from the SEC; Oklahoma and Nebraska from the Big 12; Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa and Illinois from the Big Ten; Virginia and Virginia Tech from the ACC; and of course Notre Dame. USC’s ability to routinely beat up on those national teams, coupled with its inability to run roughshod over its supposedly weak Pac-10 competition (as so many folks wrongly expect them to do each year), clearly demonstrates the absolute falsity of the “Pac-1” theory. The Pac-10 is a good, competitive conference. You can’t take anything for granted. Anybody can beat you. If you have a letdown, you’ll lose.

If the SEC is a “war,” then dammit, so is the Pac-10.

It’s also instructive to look at why, in spite of its losses, USC has still managed to win those “seven straight conference titles” that everyone keeps talking about. The answer to that question is further evidence of the Pac-10’s toughness, and its tendency toward intraconference cannibalism. Why hasn’t anybody dethroned USC? It’s not because the Trojans have been invincible — rather, it’s because, after beating USC, the Trojan-vanquishers invariably lose other games to other Pac-10 teams, preventing them from winning the conference title (or at least from winning it outright). Because, news flash, winning in the Pac-10 is hard.

For instance, Washington State, which beat USC in 2002, finished 7-1 in conference play, a loss to Washington in the Apple Cup preventing them from winning the league outright.

Cal, which beat USC in 2003, finished 5-3 in conference play that year, with losses to Oregon State, UCLA and Oregon.

Oregon State, which beat USC in 2006, finished 6-3, with losses to Cal, Washington State, and UCLA. The Bruins, who also beat USC that year (let us never speak of it again), finished 5-4, losing to Washington, Oregon, Washington State, and Cal.

Stanford, which beat USC in 2007, finished 3-6, with losses to UCLA, Oregon, Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State. Oregon, another USC-beater in ’07, finished 5-4, with losses to Cal, Arizona, UCLA and Oregon State.

Oregon State, which beat USC in 2008, finished 7-2, with losses to Stanford and Oregon. And Washington in 2009? I’m willing to bet they’ll suffer at least two losses in conference play before the season is out.

If you want to say that this means USC has lost to a bunch of mediocrities over the last few years, I won’t argue with you. But then, don’t turn around and apply a different standard to other leagues, citing these very same sort of facts as proof positive of conference parity, competitive balance, and “war-like” anybody-on-any-given-day status.

If you want to find a conference where anybody can beat anybody else, look no further than the Pac-10. Saturday’s game was just the latest proof of that.