I do a follow up, dedicated to our ALAN, with Garbage, the musical descendents of the Pretenders. They had great promise at first but now....? Anyway, the world needs more sexy Scottish lead singers in the mold of Chrissie Hynde, wouldn't you say?

Garbage: alas, "Beautiful Garbage" really sucked and I zoned out after that; the first two albums were brilliant though.

I had no idea. GIve me some YouTube links for my edjification.

When we were in university when we saw cute frosh we used to play a game "what grade was she in when we were in first year?". That got real depressing after a while and then we didn't play any more.

gr, I certainly would.

As for China, what about the theory of changing the system by being a part of it? In that maybe if we're friendly with them we can convince them to change their ways? That's the argument my RSP fund uses for holding Wal-Mart stock.

I have to deal with that still. I will say "excellent tune, first year undergrad!" to which she will respond "excellent tune, grade seven sock hop!"

My theory of brats: do not give them extra pocket money while acting like brats. Send brats to room.

Go fetch. I'll keep them up there until at least the end of the weekend.

Alan, today's Garbage post has about 5 video music links total, and I should explain: it was not a kilt, just the plaid shirt tied around the waist with shorts that looks like a kilt from behind look.
Ageism: in our house it also goes like that:
she 'the year I graduated from college and got a job'
he 'yeah, me too, that year I was in 8th grade and I cut lawns for the neighbors!'
Re: my Senator Clinton, and here I GO. I have been a Clinton supporter, as a Yellow Dog Democrat, since 92. I wouldn't have wanted to be married to Bill, but there is no question he presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity, which is sometimes overlooked when hateful types look at his private life. I was thrilled in 2000 when Hillary won, because although there have been good and strong first ladies, she was really the first to go beyond tea and cookies and reach powerful office, largely on her own merit. Look at the Quayles, George senior's VP: Marilyn had all the brains, but Danny boy got the job. It is better if first ladies have a life beyond the oval office, and I cannot stand the ridiculous blow dried woman there now. She may be more virtuous and likeable than her husband, but that isn't saying much.
Back to Hillary. She will be a good, but not progressive enough for me, Senator for another six, and she is right where she belongs and can do the most good. Anyone who thinks she has a chance at the oval office is insane: most of the US hates her, and havn't the dems tossed up enough sacrificial lambs for pres? We need a solid midwestern or southern guy with a clean record and a boatload of charisma to win the oval office.

Nice links, DJ, thanks.

As along as the repressive/repulsive regimes of the world have something that we (the West in general) want (oil from the Saudis, cheap goods from the Chinese, I can't figure out WHAT we want from the Yanks), there will be more kissy-face than the thoughtful among us can stand.

Gordo, you have to admit the Yanks do ocassionally provide a handy whipping-boy.

<i>occasionally</i> (I really have to find another word to use, as I'm forever spelling that incorrectly.)

I think the time has come to declare that lumping all Americans as one is as annoying as lumping all Canadians as one.

That being said, I think it is a tactic that the right is leaning heavily on. {I wrote about my understanding of how that occurred way back here in my "Moral Majorities" series.) I saw an astoundingly stupid piece on the CBS nightly news last evening with Rush Limbaugh given a minute to rant. He is a fool. Part of his foolishness is saying that people who disagree with him are "unpatriotic" and that opposition to the policies of the Bush administration is "an attack on the troops". These are undemocratic arguments and would persuade the simple-minded to tyanny. Opposition not governance is the hallmark of democracy and anything that undermines the freedom to oppose is unpatriotic.

I have to admit I'm just as guilty of tarring the Americans all with the same brush as everyone else. I have no problem with American <i>citizens</i> in general. My quarrel is with the idiots they keep choosing as leaders.

Rush always has been and always will be an idiot wind-bag. Nice to see him following Rumsfeld's latest lead and contoniuing to attempt to stifle open debate. I know it's crass to link to one's own blgo in someone else's but I'm too tired to re-write whgat I said last Thursday.

Gordo--me and a six pack of Porkslap NY beer and some Doritos wanna sit down with you. It has been a strange few years, watching as God whispers instructions into the ear of our dear leader, telling him to drive the USA off a cliff.

Ain'tcha glad his country can be travelled by way of hallways and stairs?

Signs of the impending post-post-9/11 here and here. Fear encourages belief and action. Action points out the limitation of fear and belief and also recommends recourse to reason.

Gary, the cottage warming will likely be taking place in the Spring next year. I'll provide the venue, some sort of roast beast and a couple of lawn chairs by the water. Beer and Doritos are fabulous discussion companions. :-)

Gee, Gordo, you read my mind! I wonder if the smart cottage builder invites friends from far and wide when something big needs finishing, like a chimney, roofing shingles, or painting? Good thing we moved into the neighborhood, but the wife needs to locate her passport.

Hey, Alan, I would love to see what is behind that piggy logo up there but......? Perhaps the linkage is leaky?

OK, cm and all, checking out now. Must clean house so I can carouse and party with my mother-in-law.

Hey, you rotted my link, Gary. Fixed it.

Thanks for the chance to casually peruse those files, Dave.

"You're the man, you're the man, you're the man, you're the man ..." (yes, I snooped around some more)

I'm the man I'm the man I'm the man. Great song.

I go away for a while (living in a self imposed time out), listening to Massive Attack by the way, and you guys devolve into full blown conspiracy/black helicopter mode('It has been a strange few years, watching as God whispers instructions into the ear of our dear leader, telling him to drive the USA off a cliff.')? For shame.

I stick up for Canadians over at the Castle only to stabbed in the back by my Northern Cousins? Sniff. ('I have no problem with American citizens in general. My quarrel is with the idiots they keep choosing as leaders.' Which kinda by extension means we're twits. Just as the book 'What's the Matter With Kansas' insinuated.). This is not commity.

No pumpkin cheesecake for you. Well, maybe for Al. If I ever travel I might need a basement to sleep in. Best to butter him up. ;)

Rush is a twit. But he is part of that great tradition of opposition(his rise was during the CLinton years). He's no different than what the opposition is doing now. He's done nothing different than some of the crass comments here("telling him to drive the USA off a cliff." Which is odd. Because the US has nearly equal to or lower un-employment, depending on who you listen to,(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5751588) now than during the Clinton admin(http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-01.html). If that's off a cliff I wonder what being on the level is.). There's more than enough dogmatism going around right now, on both sides, for us to come up with new, snide ways to call those we disagree with idiots and scum we pretend 'The Other' will never see, or, worse, is to stupid to understand.

You don't like Bush's foreign policy. That's cool. I hated Bill Clinton's just as much. I like Canada's 20 year love affair with gutting her fine armed forces just as much.

Okay, I take back the no cheescake thing. I always bake too much. Who wants some?

dang.
That should read 'dislike Canada's love affair...' instead of 'like Canada's...'.
Sorry.

I'm American, ry, and I said the 'whispering in the ear...' part. I am far from ashamed. I wonder where paranoia and theocracy get us? Are we supposed to turn off our brains and follow blindly?

I am fine with that, ry. Except that the <i>leadership</i> of the right has learned much in the years in the wilderness and bought the PR consultant reports whole hog. The sad thing about the <i>leadership</i> of the right in the US - as we are also seeing in Canada I think - is that the good intentions at the grassroots has been sold a bill of goods. I don't mean this to mean that there are evil powers. There is just not the sharpest knives in charge and there is all that twisting draw of pure power. I think low poll turnouts as the House and perhaps the Senate flip in November will show that.

Sadly, this has meant the good work of many in response to the needs of your nation for security, long term economic stability, response to emergency, etc, etc, has not been what might have been. Remember, I am a Powell person. The WOT should have been full committement. And the nation ought to have been mobilized. The Rumsfeldian nuWar, eWar, has been a flop over three and a half years in and here we are in Afghanistan with our Defence Minister and Chief of Staff asking NATO for more this weekend - four and a half years after the fall of Afghanistan.

So Rush is an idiot, and you are right he is a voice of opposition but sooner or later he will be just an embarassment and a real opposition will get voice. As wide-leg jeans are to fashion, he and his sort will be to the political realm. Maybe in 2008 there will be a move back to centerism and reason.

gr:
"I'm American, ry, and I said the 'whispering in the ear...' part. I am far from ashamed. I wonder where paranoia and theocracy get us? Are we supposed to turn off our brains and follow blindly?"
And where does turning off our brains, being paranoid about what the current admin does (or you suspect they do), and call those who, having thought about it and found it worthwhile, essentially stupid fascists?
Well, that gets us the DU and little Green Footballs divide.

We can do better than that.

But, all of us have a certain level of laziness to us. That's why epithets like pinko-commie, fascist, theocrat, and American-Taliban get injected into the political discourse. They're cheap efforts to liken our political enemy to the worst things we can think of to make the enemy unpalatable to as many people as possible. It's scare mongering and McCarthyism. It's also effective as hell, which is why everyone still does it.

But we can do better. At least here at Al's we can.

I'm shifting from a career in chemistry to one of mil-pol analysis. Forced to because a congenital eye disorder means I can't work as a bench chemist anymore. From what I've studied the last three years and from the people I'm studying under this makes sense. It isn't 'theocracy'. It's a cold eyed desire to achieve much of the goals Al often espouses. Read TPM Barnett(http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/). His books (Pentagon's New Map and Blue Print should be available to you.) You may not agree with it. But it is a case built on logic. Maybe not logic you agree with because you don't accept the axioms it's based on. But not theocracy and paranoia.
That's just a cheap thing talking points spouters throw around---and you've probably been hit with it enough that you don't even realize it for what it is.

Al: Disagree with you, bro'. Study The American Korean War experience(TR Fehrenbach's This Kind of War is a nice start. A bit polemical, but not disastrously so.). Mobilizing the populace did not help with that at all. Americans, Canadians, heck, all of us Anglo descended countries don't want to fight messy wars of policy. We only want to fight 'crusades' where the black hats and the white hats are easily discernable. That's why Korea and Vietnam had constantly deteriorating public support not only in the US but across the Anglosphere as well. UN legitimacy or not.
Look at how the idea of a draft was thrown around in '04 as a scare tactic. We believe in a Hegelian world. Most of our day-to-day experiences support such a world view. We find it hard to understand that it isn't like that elsewhere and that it takes an obscenely not nice method to extend that Hegelian sphere to our brother humans. ANd if we don't we get lambasted for it too you know.

Simply put: We would rather go to a place like Rawanda or Darfur(Sudan) than forestall a bigger conflict in which we can't easily determine that. We need, for our own psychic protection, a Grand Cause(making the world safe for democracy, saving the world from bolshevist aggression, ending the horrors of fascism) that absolves us of the evil of the war we unleash. We aren't happy unless we have it. We don't want the taint of it so we quickly form these circular firing squad like intra-mural hate fests on the 'net and on other media as well.

I know this, first hand, because I study how to get the public behind a war to protect Tawian, which is in line with the Laird Total Force Policy and the Abrahms Doctrine instituted after Vietnam to ensure that national will be brought to the fight. Hard sell. Obscenely hard. I don't think it can be done. Nobody believes that their kidlet is worth someone else living free anymore(and before anyone tries to throw chickenhawk, don't. I've tried to enlist many times. The same eye condition that makes me incapable of being a bench chemist renders me unfit for military service. Kerataconus. I'll fax you my medical records and put you into contact with the last recruiter I was dealing with if you want. I'm willing to take the Pepsi challenge on this.).

Whether I tell people about the PRC's intent to control the Pacific out to Midway island by 2050(which is true. They've outlined that in many a whitepaper if you care to look.) with taking Taiwan as the first step in the forming of that new empire or not they don't want to go. It isn't a Cause. When it's a visceral or existential threat they'll worry. When they're convinced it's a world wide threat they'll worry. Until then they won't care and will not support sending so much as a single bullet to Taiwan because defending Taiwan isn't a Cause.

We, the US will have to go anyways. People will bitch about it. They'll tar and feather the Admin that goes,as they moan about theocracy and intolerance to dissent in this one. Doesn't change that it's necessary to go to maintain the Hegelian world we all helped create in the wake of WW2. Ugly. Messy war of policy that none of us want to be responsible for. But we are.

Much the same with Iraq.

Sanctions 'keeping him in his box' were untenable. ANyone read about the '50k' they killed yearly? Anyone remember the political pressure that was being brought to end the sanctions(even the 'smart sanctions' of which oil-for-food was part of)? Anyone remember Madline Albright getting eviscerated by the world press over them? I do. So does the google way back machine.

And to say that Hussein didn't have designs for conquering the ME is to be willfully ignorant. Read what Baathism is about. Rememeber that he styled himself a neo-Saladin, a unifier of the ME against everyone else. Remember that he nearly brought Iraq to war with its Baathist brother Syria over control of the Baathist movement and went to war with both Kuwait and Iran. The man definitely had designs for a great big bloody conflict that could have caused a global depression or started something like 1914(I hate the 1939 analogy. Not nearly as insidious as that. But definitely destructive enough to parallel 1914.). Remember how ugly things got during the Tanker Wars of the mid 80s? Childs play given how the players had re-armed since then(check Janes. Can't afford Jane's? Me neither. Try FAS instead.)

That isn't what we were sold. you're right, Al. It wasn't. But we wouldn't go if that's what we were given. We wouldn't go. It's not a Cause. It's an ugly, nasty war of policy to maintain our nice, global economy, Hegelian world. It's a war that keeps that extending into regions that aren't, but it isn't a Cause(but genocide is, as is fears of nuclear war.).

Sorry Al. I think Powell learned all the wrong lessons from Vietnam. He reasoned that if the people wouldn't support the issue it wasn't worth fighting. I don't accept that. That's the kind of thing that's left Rawanda to the wolves, and continues to leave Darfur and Somalia to them. We aren't willing to see our brothers die in some foreign land so we can't implement might for right(which is what you really seem to want to me, you want to know that it isn't just another callous move to garner wealth or spread unfairness and this seems the most effective way of doing that) effectively. So things that should be fought over and won aren't. I get the why you want him to be right. You have more faith in the inherent willingness to sacrifice in your fellow man(though you do lament about the lack in your posts about community). I've been disappointed a few too many times to have that faith and so I work to see that the job gets done whether you're on board or not. It needs doing whether you believe it to or not.

I know this doesn't really go toward gr's(admittedly anticipated) arguments. Sorry. Not intentionally ducking. But my reasons for supporting it from the beginning weren't the ones being talked about on CNN's Crossfire(even if James Carville admitted that there was more than just WMD on the agenda) or in the op-ed section of the NYT(or anywhere other publication). But it is quite clearly not messianic or paranoid delusions---if you want a better articulation read TPM Barnett or TDAXP(http://www.tdaxp.com/). You may not agree with the reasoning, but that doesn't make it based in theology or paranoia(Barnett's an economic determinist for crying out load).

Al, I tell you, from studying budget fights on the Hill during three previous admins on back to ww2, the leadership or the will to do the security, economy, disaster response you want just doesn't exist down here.

It didn't exist during Reagan. Or if it did it got subverted by the desire of both parties to win instead of doing what was right. That's continued up thru today. Last time I know of a party not doing this was in 1944. They even did it during Korea. Vietnam is the epitome of wedge issuing for domestic political advantage, and it's a legacy that's taken root. Praticed by both sides rather viciously. Lexis-Nexis is replete with examples of both sides playing that game without remorse. Winning matters more than doing the right thing. The fact that fascism is thrown around so much, or charges of theocracy for that matter, show how unserious people are about doing the right thing and how serious they are about defaming the opposing 'tribe'.

It always comes down to the short term. I'm sure if I studied Canadian history, which I have not done, true visionaries doing the long term right thing instead of doing the short term exploit would be rare. The visionaries are always rare.

"Maybe in 2008 there will be a move back to centerism and reason." Doubt it. Particularly since centrism is so hard to define. What is a centrist? Is John Donovan a centrist? Is Herr Flea? Are you? Am I? Is Lieberman? Is McCain? Is Guiliani? Find me a definition of what centrism is, that more than 20 people will agree on, and I might say that it is possible. Otherwise, not believing in it so much. Reason exists. It just gets lost in all the short cuts(like name calling) that we do instead of making the effort. Because it's hard and exhausting work to do so.

"So Rush is an idiot, and you are right he is a voice of opposition but sooner or later he will be just an embarassment and a real opposition will get voice." And what would that look like, Al? National Review is seen as not much better than the funny pages by those who disagree with this current administration. What constitutes a good, honest, rational voice against American liberalism, since I agree that '08 puts a democrat in the drivers seat? If it all is crap, always was crap, I don't think that there's any real means to be the opposition in the theatre of ideas. Which means you have to be a Rush Limbaugh---a carricature of conservatism, very innayouface, and mean like Limbaugh is and has been(Kos has taken this model and run with it, as has Micheal Moore, for the other side)--- to be a viable voice of opposition. Read the Port Huron statement(http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/SDS_Port_Huron.html). That too was a very 'you suck, I'm right, get the f outta my way' kind of thing. And that was the rallying cry for a whole generation of political operators. That's the game, Al. I think it laudable that you want to bring it back from the brink of uncivility that has existed since the Huron statemnet(but could've existed before then), but that's not the game as it exists today. Away from GenX40 I have no choice but to act on that pragmatically. Thanks for the haven.

I really do think if you read Pentagon's New Map you'd be less unkind to Rumsfeld though. Or get yourself a copy of this months Proceedings(tell you what. I'll photocopy it and send you the relevant pages as a pdf.) where they talk about the problems of the institutional thinking of the military(of which the Powell doctrine was a big part. Go with big formations. Fight fast. Win. Leave. That's the Powell doctrine in a nutshell. It was designed to avoid getting into something like the Marshall Plan. That's a better model IMHO, Al. I'll send you those pages. Email me and I'll hit you back with them because I don't have your email stored in memory.). The US military doesn't have, and never had, the capacity for the back half of conflict---the reconstruction element. Our experiences in Vietnam warned us against taking on that element.
I'm rambling. Sorry. Smack upside the head and I'll resond some tomorrow. (More cheesecake anyone?)

I didn't call them stupid fascists, ry, but hey, if you like that term, maybe it fits.
LBJ was a good man and politician in many ways, but did he feel good about Vietnam? He made mistakes in pushing that thing and he felt it and had the sense to show his remorse (by quitting politics, etc). I don't see much soul searching at the White House these days, and this thing sure looks like deja vu all over again.

THat was very good, ry. You always have an impressive quality let alone quality and thanks for sharing background that puts so much in context. But let me say this. When I think of leadership of the right, I really do not think of the administration and military so much as the general movement that was fueled by the evangelicals i nthe 50s and 60s who advocated commuinication of the message as the means to create acceptance of the message. Rhetoric over logic. The right has unbridled itself in large part from conservatism, fiscal prudence, community and even result. In that sense it is plainly radical. It is so keyed in on acceptance of jingoism over production of outcomes that it becomes hard to identify principle because principle has been replaced. As a result, there is no need to involve the population in the great global democratic project because that is a professionals job, whether military or diplomat or CEO. As we have seen too many times, a leader that strays too far from the community or does not listen gets a short sharp shock one day. As such, it is radical failure.

And this is not just at the level of your Federal government or elections. One day the cause of the embarassment will likely be a realization that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands have died in the name of the three thousand who died on 9/11 <i>without</i> the problem getting solved. Iraq will be an unstable place, Afghanistan a patchwork of nasty warlords, the US little loved and still at risk of terrorism. It may be a long time after the professional and primarily military option fails that people realize that the professional and primarily military option has failed. But it will because at the end there can only be peace and mutual reconciliation. These two things are not even on the map right now. Without a plan that clearly is rolling this out as the primary goal in the eyes of the given population, it is bound to fail. As a result, the Rumsfeldian too small expeditionary, shock and awe, they will throw flowers and beg for our values approach has been doomed. Others plans may have also had other failings but this place we are at now is what was warned of in the past and the warnings were not heeded.

Whoa, Alan, nicely put.

"I didn't call them stupid fascists, ry, but hey, if you like that term, maybe it fits."
No gr, you don't come right out and say it. You dance around it. You drop all the breadcrumbs leading up to the gingerbread house, but you don't open the door and invite us in.
Really, what's the difference though?
Contempt and questioning of the humanity of the opposition is the same thing whether you're witty about it or not witty about it.

Digressing. Sorry. Here's my main issue with what I see you doing gr: name calling and the witty implications make the fight about whether the names are apt or not instead of about the bigger issue. It short circuits delving into the issue and finding out what the other guy really means.
Are there people of the 'right' that deserve opprobrium? Absolutely! Pat Buchanon is making me ashamed to be CAtholic, American, and a Burkean conservative. BUt it's his ideas that do so(like his recent attempt to use cultural-biology, a rather new field, to say that the US must remain at least 60% Anglo. Preposterous and evil.). BUt first we'd have to argue about whether conservatives are heartless racists before we got to that. Then we'd have to fight whether what I call 'the handful of ideas' and Buchanon's racism are equivalent(I essentially believe there's only a hnadful of ideas that really form the backbone of the US as a polity and an identity. Preserve those and it doesn't matter what the ethnicity is.).

It turns into an 'I'm more moral than you' contest. Not cool. And it isn't you per se gr. It's a whole ton of people who do it, who do it far worse than you, and I'm kicking you for it. Sorry.

Al:
Yours will take a bit more effort in writing. I wrote something but it's damn near un-intelligble and The Wife is calling me for our weekly anime addiction fix. Sorry. More on the morrow.

Seems to me, ry, that all I have done is ask whether the Republican leadership is doing the right thing with the right motives. I have also asked whether they realize or care if they are making mistakes. If I have said anything anything witty that distracts you from whatever your purpose is, that is wholly unintentional and my mistake. I will try to avoid being witty.

BTW, ry, whaddya think about the Colts this year? They got my kicker from the Patriots, Vinatieri, but I still got his number 4 jersey. Maybe that is just what the Colts need. Or maybe the Pats will kick their ass anyway.

I think it is a victory to establish that "The Right" and "The Left" are unacceptable in themselves. I will try to remember to reference the ledership, the administration or specific people in relation to specific ideas or acts. I know I will fail at this. <p>I am entirely rethinking my relationship with the NFL. I have never really been close to a team, though the Pats would be it by default as a Maritimer. I like the idea of the Jets because there can be no claim to bandwagon, they are green and they are named after an adjoining jurisdiction.

I have been thinking Jets too, lately, as a new New Yorker. There is nothing wrong with multiple team affiliations. The Jets have the cool retro-forest green thing which I find very appealing. I did hear the other day that the most expensive NFL tickets are the Pats, starting at 90, the cheapest are the Bills at 41. I am seriously thinking of asking the Bills into my big football tent. The Lew Bryson guide to NY beer makes a person want to got to Buffalo brewpubs, with a big appetite, and tickets for football.
(full disclosure: I grew up in Northern Ohio, where the Browns had their training camp, and later in western NY, but spent my 20s in Chicago and my 30s in New England, now back to NY. With the Jets, that gives me 5 favorite teams. Oh well, somebody there ought to win something)
And I took a cheap shot at ry and the Colts. You guys have had fantastic teams for years and deserve some big wins, but I miss Vinatieri.

Colts will lose this year because they didn't keep Edgerin James. Their running attack is rather hit and miss as the Sanday night game showed. That's going to hurt. You don't win playoff games without a solid running attack. HOmefield advantage doesn't help with that.

Vinateri was a nice pick-up. He's less neurotic than the last guy. But, having to choose between using the Vinateri money on keeping James with a rookie kicker or Vinateri with the current run attack I'd have chosen the rookie kicker. James is just that important to the overall efficiency of the offense.

10-6. Possibely going 12-4. 2nd round exit.

Cheap shot? I thought was the nicest thing you've said to me all thread, gr. Saw no malice in that at all. We really just don't get each other, me thinks.

I'm working on a reply to your statements, Al. I may just ahve to turn them into a Castle post. A thurough reply requires one of my posts-that-never-end, and I'll not do that here when we've, intelligently, gotten back to talking sports.

And I do recommend the MAssive Attack greatest hits album. Wife got it for my 32nd Natal and have been listening to it non-stop since she handed it to me on that occasion. Mellow, with a dance groove aftertaste.

ry-I can't stand talking politics. I don't listen to am talk radio for the same reason: I have my opinons, you have yours, it is that simple. I am also very shy in person and it takes a lot of energy for me to argue with somebody about these things. I actually think you and I understand each other fine, our beliefs, however, are different. And I could talk football with anybody all day, and if I was a Colts fan I would be a bit frustrated. I tuned into the Pats yesterday against Buffalo. There is something about the Pats, they always win these little games in the end with a little score, no matter how heroic the other team plays, and I was pulling for Buffalo.
You guys are lucky to have Vinatieri, do you know how many games and Super Bowls he won in New England? I believe almost 20 games, and I think all 3 of the bowls. Probably all of their playoff wins too.

Oh, there's no doubt that Vinateiri is a clutch kicker. The Pats-Rams SB proved that 5 seasons ago. He's a heck of a player.
That's not in question.IT's whether or not the Colts can be in position for his nerves of steel to matter. Without the running game they had with James I highly doubt it.

The D has always been one that needs a lead to make the opposition predictable. That thrives on being on the sidelines for long periods of time to be unleashed. BUt now that D, lacking a ball controlling running game, will have to grind. That's not going to go well. Not at all. They'll break. Often. Give up big plays and lots of touchdowns.

Manning will then have to pass much more than is wise. And when the Colts meet either the Bengals, Steelers, or Pats in the playoffs the Colts'll lose because those other teams can run the ball.

ANd Vanderjackt wasn't that bad. He's gotten the Christie rap(91 Super Bowl vs. the Giants). Miss one big kick and that's all people want to remember. But choosing between V and J? V. V's never missed that important a kick. But I'd still rather have James than either one if I only had to choose between the three. He's that good.

Vinatieri has never been perfect, BUT his teams have never lost a game because he missed one, and they have won dozens.
I think you guys have what might be the best QB ever to play. He's smart, big, accurate, all the rest. Eli is NOTHING in comparison, and I don't think Archie was that great either. What Peyton doesn't have, but the Pats and Steelers both have is coaching. Belichek, Weiss and Romeo Crenell were the smartest coaching staff on earth. They could put in any guy and win a game, even ME. Any team playing a bunch of nobodies has a smart coach. Over at Pitt, Bill Cowher is individually maybe an even better coach, but then he got that guy, is it Norm Coleman?, and that was the last piece. Tell the guys who own the Colts to spend on the coaches, for Peyton's sake.