Posse Incitatus

Yeah, the Never Trumpers don't believe in civility either

It's been two years since Donald Trump locked up the GOP nomination for president and when that happened, a substantial portion of the conservative commentariat decided that they were implacably opposed to him.

These nascent Quislings offer a variety of excuses for their treason, but one they all had in common was that Trump was beyond the pale of civil discourse.

They hit on this again and again and continue to harp on it.  And yet, when pushed on the topic, it runs out that Jen Rubin, one of the loudest remaining Vichy Conservatives, is actually fine with harassing Trump administration officials.  In fact, she thinks this should be a lifelong punishment for the guilty parties without any possibility of parole.

This actually isn't that big of a deal if you think about it.  While a lot of people (including this blog) have focused on the personal embarrassment the Quisling Never Trumpers have suffered for the poor judgement, their ideological treason has also had serious financial consequences.

Jen Rubin is losing money.  Jonah Goldberg is losing money.  The Trumpening has been a financial disaster for them (though not as disastrous as it was for the Fredocons at Red state).

One thing I've learned over the years is that people really resent taking a pay cut.  It pisses them off in a very special and implacable way.  Rubin had a nice gig as one of the 'house conservatives' at the Washington Post. 

Don't get me wrong, she still works there, but no one takes her seriously any more.  No one links to her stories and says "Check this #hottake out!"  When Rubin gets a link, it's because she's made an ass of herself and reversed yet another one of her long-standing positions solely because Donald Trump acted on it.

So when she says that Sarah Huckabee Sanders should be hassled for the rest of her life, this is because she - Jen Rubin - will also pay for getting Trump wrong for the rest of her own life.   She wants her enemies to feel her pain because she can't see any path for her own redemption.

She's not alone, of course.  Jonah Goldberg came out with a book a while back, and it's getting panned by both left and right.  

That's gotta hurt, but it's not exactly a surprise.  One can't put a book out defending Western civilization and expect the let to endorse it simply because you hate Trump almost as much as they do.  The left still despises Goldberg and his arguments.  The difference is now most the right also despises him.

The obvious exist strategy is to pull a massive mea culpa and get right with the conservative base.  There were multiple opportunities to credibly do this.  Sure, not everyone would forgive and forget, but a Never Trumper who "sees the light" and becomes a staunch defender of The Donald has a lot more prospect for success than one who admits no wrongdoing and instead continues to harp on the same arguments that failed in 2016.

This is visceral, not logical.  That's the level the Never Trumpers are operating on.  I've seen some idiots try to link this implacable hostility to Jewishness, but that fails to account for clear-thinkers like David Horowitz and David "Spengler" Goldman, who have both been lions in defense of Trump.

The worst part is that the decline isn't going to be a swift one.  Rubin, Goldberg and the rest have managed to feather their nests quite well.  They won't be going to truck driving school any time soon.  Instead, they're going to cling to their "distinguished chairs" and opinion blogs and watch their traffic decline and the references to them become increasingly disparaging. And the bank balance will continue to drop.

They'd arguably be better off driving a big rig - at least from a mental health perspective.

And maybe from a financial one as well.  Truckers are in short supply at the moment.  Some good money to be made there.

Of course, then they'd be profiting from the policies of Donald Trump.  Such a conundrum.

Another week of yuuge winning

More than a year into his presidency, the battle rhythm of the The Donald is starting to emerge.  Knowing that the Democrat-owned press is irredeemably hostile, he arranges events in a series of convergences, resulting in bursts of good news that simply overwhelm the press filters.

It's hard to believe, but in this single span of seven days:

1. Trump dominated the G-7 talks, easily brushing aside efforts to form a united front against him.
2. He humiliated Justin from Canada, giving the pretty-boy ruler the back of his hand as he proceeded to more important matters.
3. The Singapore Summit went off without a hitch, providing a solid opening for future talks on finally resolving the Korean War. 
4. The IG report - which he obviously saw in advance - perfectly buttressed his long-standing claims about a Deep State.  The fact that the executive summary was a whitewash contradicted by the details within only adds to the sense that the FBI is a deeply compromised institution.
5. The economy continues to soar, despite all the talk of trade war.  Current growth forecasts are in the mid-four percent range - far above anything Obama achieved.

It is possible for the press to ignore one or two of these items, but they cannot look past them all.  It is almost the mirror image of Obama's "stray voltage" strategy of starting a pointless partisan pie fight to distract from more serious and unfavorable news.

In Trump's execution, the stray voltage is all good.  Tired of seeing Trump shaking hands and looking like a world leader at the G7?  Well now you can see him negotiating a peace settlement with North Korea - you remember, the thing he was going to turn into World War III.   The pathetic bitching of the press and their Never Trumper Quisling allies that Trump isn't being bellicose enough was a sight to see.

Tired of that?  Oh well, I guess you'll just have to sort through all the job offers that are piling up on your desk thanks to the booming economy.

Oh, but the trade war!  Right, and who doesn't enjoy Democrats trying to take control of Congress openly rooting for foreign boycotts of American goods?  Say, if we slap tariffs on RUSSIA, will they finally decide Putin's on the side of the angels after all?

I know I rip on the Never Trump Traitors, but this week pretty much crushed them.  Only the most insane are still howling that Shrillery would have been a better president.  Even the singing eunuchs at National Review are starting to lose heart.  The truth is that outside Twitter and a few Beltway circle-jerks, these people have no following and no influence.  They are included on cable shows merely as comic relief and deserve less attention than the Preparation H commercials that bracket their segment.  (This is because Preparation H is actually useful.)

Jonah Goldberg's new book has been panned by right and left alike, and I'm not surprised.  It's the height of delusion for a guy whose entire career was built on telling Simpsons jokes to believe he's now a deep thinker.

Or, to put it another way:  what kind of idiot would buy into the policy prescriptions of a guy who has been unrelentingly wrong for most of the last decade?  He's gone from being NR's enfant terrible to just plain terrible.

All this is a lot to absorb, but thanks to months of careful diet and training, I can handle more winning.

The twisted memoirs of Hillary Clinton

There’s an old joke that every memoir produced in Washington could be called “If Only They’d Listened to Me.”

Hillary Clinton’s book is the exception to the rule.  It proves that people did listen to her, and voted accordingly.

I have to admit that I’m rather surprised by the passages that have been leaked.  Given the Clintons’ mammoth staff, disciplined press shop and months to hone the message, this book is a massive self-inflicted wound.

t will not persuade a single soul that Hillary was wronged, but will likely convince many supporters that the woman is utterly deranged.  I would not be surprised if Trump’s approval rating goes up as people realize just how nutty the alternative was.

For me, the most striking passage is the one where an old woman brings her adult daughter to Hillary to obtain “absolution” for her failure to vote.  Hillary refused to do so.

What a bitter, hateful thing to do!  Who would advertise doing this?  Does she expect this show of implacable anger to make her seem more “authentic?”  It doesn’t, it makes her seem petty and vindictive – and someone who must be kept as far away from the levers of power as possible.

Now let us imagine for a moment that this hot-tempered harpy had somehow gained control of the White House.   Would she nuke Russia in a fit of anger?  Who among her obsequious courtiers would dare defy her wishes?

The general rule in autobiographies is that you try to make yourself seem more likeable than you actually are, peppering the story with tales of generosity and good deeds.

Hillary’s screed does the exact opposite.  She seems to go out of her way to live up to every Republican caricature, even to the point of embracing the utterly depraved and hateful Cersei Lannister from “Game of Thrones” as someone she can identify with.

Seriously?  In a show full of empowered women, she went with the politically-calculating, bloody-minded, incestuous control freak who owed her power to a political marriage of convenience?

What. The. Hell.

All people experience adversity and disappointment.  The question is not if it will happen, but how we react to it.

Hillary’s decision to put out this primal scream shows her true self, the one she promised to reveal.  In that, she was (for once) completely honest.

It is, however, one of the ugliest personalities I’ve ever seen.

This isn’t so much a memoir as a political suicide note printed in hardcover.

Useless Polls, Vulgarian Scaramucci

The editors of the Detroit Free Press are absolutely orgasmic over this headline. The lower Donald Trump's poll ratings are, the more they believe his administration will be an utter failure and his chances of getting re-elected are tantamount to Hugh Heffner's chances of being chosen as spokesman for the virtues of chastity.

But this is simply shallow thinking. For one thing, consider how inaccurate the polls were in the 2016 presidential election. Does anyone with half a brain and an ounce of critical thinking ability really put that much stock in job approval ratings?

Despite anemic economic growth and more than 90 million adults being out of the labor force during the Obama administration, his cult-like supporters repeatedly pointed to his high poll ratings as "proof" that he was a good president. Obama slappies simultaneously boasted about the O-man's job approval ratings and the continuously surging Dow Jones Industrial Average during the Annointed One's presidency.

But let's be real: A roaring stock market benefits wealthy, upper middle class and some middle class people -- if not in immediate income gains, then in continuously growing retirement accounts. However, it leaves behind tens of millions of lower middle class people who are struggling at the margins and don't have 401k accounts or stock options. Too, the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing (artificially low interest rates intended to stimulate the economy) have meant meager interest rates on the bonds many retirees count on for their income. Piss-poor returns on mutual funds and bonds inspire investors to shovel money into the stock market in hopes of earning dividends or selling shares later at a profit, even though many companies are not exactly earning large margins. 

But I digress... The point is, a president's record of success and reputation in the history books has little to do with his popularity levels at any given point in time. Let us recall that Abraham Lincoln, now regarded as one of our greatest presidents, was largely reviled while he served. There were no presidential polls in the 1860s, but if there were, Lincoln's ratings would have been abysmal. Conversely, presidents such as Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter had stellar approval ratings in their first 100 days (in the 65 to 75 percent range) but ended up in bad shape. Carter is regarded by all but the most partisan liberals as one of our worst presidents; Johnson knew his credibility was so thoroughly shot, and his Vietnam policy such a fiasco, that he didn't even bother to run for re-election.

Folks, it's still very early, and there's a lot of the game to be played. It's not worth spending a great deal of time fretting over Trump's low approval ratings. Things can change in a big way within a few months, especially if Trump and his staff can work with Congress to cut taxes, reform the tax code and build a wall on the Mexican border. Healthcare improvements are even possible without legislation -- through regulatory actions. The jury is still out.

As far as Anthony Scaramucci's farcical 10-day tenure as White House communications director, well, thank God for the military men. And thank God Trump respects them and their judgment. The president's new chief of staff, Gen. John Kelly, made it clear from the outset that he didn't want Scaramucci around, and for good reason. There is enough chaos and indiscipline in this White House, and a loose cannon like Scaramucci only added to the problems.

Trump has been known to make rash decisions, and hiring Scaramucci was no exception. Let's hope Orange Julius learns from this ridiculous little episode that there's too much important work to be done to get sidetracked. Here's wishing Gen. Kelly good luck in keeping The Donald on the right track.

SNL Turns 40

I don't write about pop culture that often, in large part because I don't think much of today's narcissistic, mediocre-at-best entertainers. While there have been quite a few good movies in recent years, there aren't many great ones. Ditto for comedians: There are plenty who are somewhat funny or quirky, but not many who will be considered among the greatest.

Too many of today's comedians make up for lack of humor with push-the-envelope, in-your-face vulgarity. Reminds me of what my friends and I said about KISS nearly 40 years ago: They make up for their lack of musical talent with the theatrics and loud pyrotechnics.

That's why I appreciate the original "Saturday Night Live": Originating as "NBC's Saturday Night," it came out of nowhere (well, actually Chicago's Second City comedy club was a primary source) and thrust upon the public an impressive all-star cast of now household name entertainers: John Belushi, Gilda Radner, Dan Akroyd, Garrett Morris and Jane Curtin, soon to be followed by other staples including Eddie Murphy, John Candy, Chevy Chase and Bill Murray.

Their skits and satire are the stuff of legends. I am not going to bother researching the years or chronology (some of these might have been early 1980s rather than 1970s), but here are a few memories:

What middle-aged Baby Boomer who watched the show as a teen could forget the "Weekend Update" spoof of 60 Minutes involving Akroyd and Curtin. ("Jane, you ignorant slut!"). Or how about Radner's Emily Litella ("Never mind") and Roseanne Roseannadanna. Then there was Lily Tomlin's telephone operator Ernestine ("One ringy dingy..."); Murphy's parody of Fred Rogers in "Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood"; Chevy Chase lampooning President Gerald Ford; the gumby-like "Mr. Bill" character ("Oh, no!"); and the Blues Brothers (cover of Sam & Dave's "Soul Man")...

Granted, sometimes the humor was left-wing and counter-culture in nature, but that's par for the course. Comedians by their very nature tend to lean left, because they exist to push the envelope. They operate in a malleable universe without absolutes and devoid of parameters. But the SNL humor was original, clever and had some real wit and bite to it. It was not the crude, often mean-spirited F-bomb stew that passes for humor today.

As I've often said, you don't want your accountant or lawyer up on stage trying to entertain or kick out the jams; nor do you want a stand-up clown or rock star representing you in court or doing your taxes. There's a time and a place for everything, and the mid-1970s was a great era for the Not Ready for Prime Time Players.

Too bad my little town doesn't have an Olympic Cafe. Boy, would I love to stroll in there and shout: "Cheeseborger/Cheesborger/Cheeps/Pepsi!....No Coke; Pepsi!"

 

Coming Soon: More Leftist Meddling

On second thought, maybe my headline is a mindless redundancy -- sort of like saying Michigan winters are cold and snowy, or NBA players are taller than average.

The shitstorm of leftist B.S. coming our way since the arrogant elitist moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is so overwhelming, it would be exhausting to comment on all of it. But something caught my eye the other day that is so egregious, I can't resist putting in my two cents' worth.

Ajit Pai, one of five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission, wrote an alarming piece  in the Feb. 11 Wall Street Journal about how his organization is looking to meddle in America's newsrooms. That includes "newsrooms" in the traditional, conventional sense of the word, i.e., offices where PRINT journalists ply their trade. The FCC was originally established to regulate the airwaves (radio for its first 15-20 years, with television and later broadband being added as time went on). But it has no business attempting to lord it over print journalism.

Pai's article, "The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom," states that the FCC plans to thrust the federal government into newsrooms (TV, radio and print publications) with its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs." The agency plans to send out researchers to grill journalists about their "news philosophy" and the process by which stories are selected, among other things.

In typical elitist, left-wing fashion, the bureaucrats will seek to ensure that news organizations cover "critical information needs" as well as determine which stations are guilty of "station bias" and how they rate in "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations." This sounds like typical left-speak, along the lines of sustainability, social justice and "truth to power." In other words, the left-wing pipe dreams of laughably idealistic liberals.

At some point, Americans will reach the breaking point with this nonstop condescending nanny state sticking its nose in our business. When does it ever end?

The FCC has eight categories it has deemed "critical information" such as the environment and "economic opportunities." This type of micromanaging from our overlords in Washington, D.C. is absolutely maddening. I want the hacks in Washington determining which news I'm exposed to like I want a Detroit crack addict to borrow my car and run some errands for me.

The FCC is undoubtedly trying to bring back the good old days when it could influence news coverage with the Fairness Doctrine, which was left by the wayside in the late 1980s and officially removed from the books in 2011. The Fairness Doctrine, in addition to being a blatant violation of the First Amendment, often had the opposite effect of what its naive proponents intended. Since the doctrine required broadcast outlets to air contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues, many stations chose to ignore these issues altogether rather than risk alienating many of their viewers or listeners.

In the past 20 years or so, conservative talk radio has caught on big-time, in large part because tens of millions of Americans are fed up with the corrupt, leftist media that is incapable of unbiased reporting. The leftist elites in government would love to quash conservative talk radio, and this latest idiocy is only the beginning.

We're not Venezuela yet, but if Barack Obama and his fellow Trotskyites have their way, we soon will be.

Obligatory book plug

We're advertising a new product on the left sidebar:  Battle Officer Wolf.  It's an e-book and I can personally vouch for it's complete and utter excellence.

It's only available electronically, but since you are looking at a web site, you care clearly capable of reading it.  Normally, one electronic copy would be enough, but just to be safe you should buy two or three.

What is it about, you ask?  It is a brilliant retelling of the Beowulf saga updated and set in space.  By changing the setting, the author is able to make the story fresh and compelling.  If you know the story, you'll get a kick out of the adaptation; if you're unfamiliar, you will be hooked from the first paragraph.

Full disclosure:  I know the author and have a vested interest in the book's success.  But it is very good.

Benedict's resignation: Goldman gets it, Mead misses the point

The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI comes at a critical time for the Roman Catholic Church.  All Western institutions are being shaken to the core by economic, demographic and cultural forces and the Church is no exception.

 

His decision to resign is a sound one.  Gone are the days when monarchs and popes could drift into the dotage under a regency council while the ship of state wandered aimlessly until a new and energetic successor could emerge.

Benedict releases that the Church is more important than the Curia; that the bureaucracy (largely insular and Italian) are incapable of keeping the ship on course without vigorous supervision.

 

Of course, Benedict will keenly recall the decline of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, whose praiseworthy efforts in the 80s were followed by a long, painful decline.  That the pederasty scandals broke during his convalescence inflicted even more damage to the faith and its institutions as functionaries ran for cover and obfuscated rather than came clean.

 

It is for that reason that I was interested to read Walter Russell Mead’s take on the current state of the Church.  As a fan of erudite style and the seriousness with which he approaches questions of religion, I looked forward to digesting his thoughts.  Having read them, I am profoundly disappointed.

 

Instead of analyzing the challenges confronting the Church, he falls back on the all-to-familiar boilerplate that Rome is just too old-fashioned for these thoroughly modern times.  He even uses the infamous crutch of a journalist who has an opinion but prefers not to state it in order to appear impartial – the “many”:

Via Meadia is not inclined to deliver ex cathedra judgements on points of Catholic doctrine so we take no stand on the theological validity of the case against the ordination of women to the Catholic priesthood, but the Catholic Church’s belief in an exalted spiritual and political role for its all-male clergy puts it at odds with what many in the West have come to see as a vital moral principle of gender equality. This not only creates resistance to Church teaching on a key issue among many members and potential members, it legitimates anti-clericalism among many advocates of women’s rights in the West. The Catholic Church, with its ‘retrograde’ and ‘medieval’ outlook on women’s rights, many feel, must in the name of justice be pushed aside from social and political power wherever possible.

The commitment to an all-male clergy also taints Catholic moral stands on issues like abortion and homosexuality for many people. [Emphasis added]

 

Who are these “many?”  And why should the Church care?  Near the end of the passage, Mead gives the game away:

The Church’s opponents have an easy time characterizing Catholic beliefs about sexuality as a form of misogyny and backwardness, and can point in indignation and derision to the sight of an all-male College of Cardinals convening once again to elect yet another male pope. 

 

Oh, so the people who don’t like the Church anyway will criticize it? I'm sorry, I almost had a heart attack from that total lack of surprise.  I imagine that the enemies of the Church will have bad things to say no matter what the doctrine is or who is ordained.  All the more reason for the Church to adhere to its ancient and eternal beliefs instead of catering the popular whims of the moment.

 

This in fact was Benedict’s message and one he delivered well.

 

However, Mead’s critique is even weaker when we consider that Protestant churches have essentially embraced the kind of changes the Church’s opponents demands:  women ministers, gay clergy, and support for both birth control and abortion.

 

The Church of England and its American affiliate have ordained women and invested practicing homosexuals, yet their communion is riven with dissention and their church attendance is collapsing.  They are not alone – the United Methodists, Presbyterians and other mainline Protestant organizations are all losing worshipers at alarming rates.

 

To turn Mead on his head, many believe that the short-sighted decisions of these denominations to dump their core beliefes in an attempt to curry popular favor have utterly undermined their moral standing.

 

We already have several flavors of “Catholic Lite” and none of them are doing well.  Indeed,  I defy Mead to produce someone who would be a Catholic if only they made a woman pope and let gay priests marry each other.  (Note:  Andrew Sullivan does not count.)

 

Yet if Mead has completely missed the point of Benedict's ministry, David P. Goldman, who channels Spengler for Asia Times, understands it completely.

 

Goldman distilled this concept as "I have a mustard seed, and I'm not afraid to use it."  Rather than fall back on tired liberal theological tropes, Goldman actually read what His Holiness has to say.  He quotes this brilliant passage from one of Benedict's works:

We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge of a new era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different from those we have faced in the past, when Christianity will resemble the mustard seed [Matthew 13:31-32], that is, will continue only in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world.

It is, as Goldman says, a stunning assertion.

 

It also perfectly refutes Mead’s concerns.  Better that the Church endure persecution and privation than that it surrender its sacred doctrine.  Holding to eternal truth is not a popularity contest.

 

How can Mead be unaware of this?

 

As I've said, Walter Russell Mead has a great deal of insight, but his knowledge of the Catholic Church seems to be an area where he needs to do more research.

Inside the Wolverine bunker

The Detroit News has been publishing excerpts of “Three and Out: Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan Wolverines in the Crucible of College Football,” by a fellow with the unlikely (but flavorful) name of John U. Bacon.

Normally I cannot be bothered to venture into the demented world that is Skunk Bear fandom, but I found the excerpts illuminating.

They proved that I was correct in assuming that the chaos in finding Lloyd Carr’s replacement as football head coach was the result of two factors:  Michigan’s inflated self-image and sabotage by Carr himself.

This is one of those telling quotes authors love:

"If I had to put my finger on anything," said longtime faculty representative Percy Bates, "it's this notion that, 'This is Michigan. Once the job is open, they're going to be banging my door down, and I'm going to pick and choose among all these great candidates. The only question is, which of these great coaches will I invite to accept the honor of coaching at Michigan?'

Yep, that pretty much sums up the Wolverine mindset.  They figured that once the position was open, applicants would be knocking down their door.

The problem is that anyone worth having already has a decent coaching job and would therefore be unlikely to jeopardize that by applying for work elsewhere.  Sooner or later the news would get out, and then their own players and assistants would wonder.

Essentially the fools in the Michigan Athletic Department figured that top-shelf candidates would willingly risk their own careers for the mere chance of coaching in the Big House.  It’s clinically deluded behavior.

The cruel truth was that U-M had been in a skid for years.  Even its best year in the last 40 – the hallowed1997 season – only brought half of the national title (point this out the next time a Skunk Bear fan argues that MSU’s Big Ten Title is somehow less of an achievement because it is shared).

By 2007, that high point had faded into obscurity to everyone except those wearing Wolverine-pattern do-rags on their mullet and swigging Bo Wine by the case.

Phil Fulmer won an outright national title for Tennessee – and they fired him when the program went down hill.  Fans were angry with Carr’s unimaginative coaching style, ossified play-calling and consistent failure to beat Ohio State.  He knew his days were numbered and the unprecedented loss to Appalachian State only made things worse.  He had to leave before he was kicked out.

Carr’s problem was that none of his assistants were ready to take over.  That was what he really wanted.  How else to explain his erratic behavior after he retired?

LSU’s Les Miles definitely wanted the job, and Carr wanted anyone but him.  Apparently Carr suggested RichRod, and then immediately undercut him by offering to sign transfer waivers for anyone who wanted to leave.  This latter development was the origin of the “bare cupboard” excuse.

It seems to me that either Carr was setting up RichRod to fail because none of his people had a shot, or he was simply irrational.  Either way, the result was the same: the Skunk Bears, who were already shaky, got to experience their own version of the John L. Smith era.

If anything, the excerpts show how important it is for hiring decisions to be made in a far-sighted and deliberate manner.  Like MSU, the Wolverines were in a panic and utterly unprepared to find a replacement.  The outgoing athletic director, Bill Martin, was utterly clueless.  This successor, Dave Brandon, is better but still made questionable decisions.

For one:  Why not fire RichRod for the NCAA violations and avoid the buyout clause in his contract?  Why wait until after the bowl game – a game everyone knew U-M would lose – to drop the axe?

He may have tried to make it look like he wasn’t trying to railroad RichRod, but it should have been clear that RichRod deserved the sack simply through his own ineptitude.  He was a terrible hire and a lousy coach.  He lied about his previous contract with West Virginia and U-M had to pay for most of his buyout.  Consecutive losing seasons despite a velvety-soft schedule built around a preponderance of home games should have told anyone that the Skunk Bears had an awful coach.

As I noted yesterday, U-M is structurally set up to win a minimum of eight games every year simply by showing up.  It takes extra effort to lose to teams like Toledo, yet RichRod managed to pull it off.

This track record is why I remain skeptical of Brady Hoke.  So far, he hasn’t done anything noteworthy.  The offense is the same and while the defense in improved, it took consistent, tireless effort to make it stink as badly as it did under RichRod.  Short of feeding the students valium in the pre-game meal, I don’t see how it could have gotten worse.

Given Michigan’s fan base, financial resources and recruiting pool - a lot of kids in the Midwest dream of playing there because of its reputation and don’t care who is coaching – the U-M football team was never going to be as hapless as the men’s basketball team.  The alumni would not allow it to happen.

The sportswriters are insisting that Hoke won’t let the team melt down, but I’ll believe it when I see it.  It wasn’t that long ago that the Skunk Bear faithful were wearing “May the Forcier Be With You” T-shirts, hailing him as a Heisman prospect.  Where is Tate Forcier now?  He’s a Spartan – no, not that kind – he’s at San Jose State University.

Forcier’s fate exemplified everything that was wrong about how RichRod ran his team. 

Hoke is doing better, but that’s a pretty low bar.

I’m not about to go buy the book, but the excerpts were illuminating.  As they say, read the whole thing.

 

 

Book review: Victory of the West

Over the past couple of weeks I've had the pleasure to finally read "Victory of the West," by
Niccolo Camponi.

It's an interesting read, and I learned a great deal not only about the events leading up to the Battle of Lepanto, but also naval warfare during that period.

Despite the title, the author takes great pains not to paint either side as better than the other.  However, there is simply no nice way to describe Janissaries - they are without a Christian equivalent and they pretty much give the lie to the whole notion that "jihad" really means "personal struggle" - unless getting to use enslaved children forcibly converted to your faith is a more accepted form of self-improvement than I thought.

Something the author stresses - and something that is worth pointing out to contemporary readers - is that both the Christians and the Muslims adhered to a code of honor.  Yes, they were locked in a holy war, but there were some things you just didn't do.

Indeed, to break one's work to the enemy was not only certain to earn their ire, it would also earn the contempt of your own side.  It makes a startling contrast with modern militant Islam, which basically can't be trusted to abide by any rules at all.  No act is too depraved for the modern Islamic terrorist - something that would have horrified the Sultan and his generals.

Looking back, it does give more credence to the notion that perhaps Mark Steyn is wrong; perhaps radical Islam is the "weaker horse" and only Western intellectual and civilizational cowardice is holding it up.  Certainly the Islam embodied by the Ottoman Empire in the 1500s was far more tolerant, self-confident and, for lack of a better term, civilized.

Anyhow, it's a worthwhile read, and loaded with period flavor.  Buy it!