Trailing by just two points with 3:37 to play, IU lost its composure against Louisville's hounding, full-court pressure and eventually lost the game in a big way.
Freshman forward Francisco Garcia came off the bench to score a career-high 23 points as the No. 8 Cardinals scored the game's final 17 points in a 95-76 victory over No. 19 Indiana before a Freedom Hall record crowd of 20,086.
It was the 15th win in a row for Louisville (16-1), its longest winning streak since the 1986 NCAA championship season. It's the Cardinals' best start since the 1974-75 season.
The game was supposed to have been nationally televised on CBS but was pre-empted because of the space shuttle tragedy.
Wow!
According to U of L Sports Information Director Kenny Klein (and man, did I just get a flashback...I used to write sentences that began like that a lot back in my days with U of L's newspaper...), the game will be broadcast late tonight.
The crew of the space shuttle Columbia: Colonel Rick Husband, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Anderson, Commander Laurel Clark, Captain David Brown, Commander William McCool, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, and Ilan Ramon It's no secret that I'm not a huge fan of President Bush, but his brief remarks today in response to the tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia made a favorable impression. I believe his sorrow over this tragedy is obvious, but Bush's personality enabled him to say the right words in the right manner. I also, of course, applaud his stated determination to continue America's commitment to space exploration. After the shock of this tragedy come questions. After questions come the answers. But the answers will not hinder, only help, our efforts to reach out into space.
My fellow Americans, this day has brought terrible news and great sadness to our country. At 9 o'clock this morning, Mission Control in Houston lost contact with our space shuttle Columbia. A short time later, debris was seen falling from the skies above Texas.
The Columbia's lost. There are no survivors.
Onboard was a crew of seven--Colonel Rick Husband, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Anderson, Commander Laurel Clark, Captain David Brown, Commander William McCool, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, and Ilan Ramon a colonel in the Israeli air force.
These men and women assumed great risk in this service to all humanity. In an age when space flight has come to seem almost routine, it is easy to overlook the dangers of travel by rocket and the difficulties of navigating the fierce outer atmosphere of the earth.
These astronauts knew the dangers, and they faced them willingly, knowing they had a high and noble purpose in life. Because of their courage and daring and idealism, we will miss them all the more.
All Americans today are thinking, as well, of the families of these men and women who have been given this sudden shock and grief. You're not alone. Our entire nation grieves with you. And those you loved will always have the respect and gratitude of this country.
The cause in which they died will continue. Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand. Our journey into space will go on.
In the skies today, we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope.
In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."
The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth, yet we can pray that all are safely home.
May God bless the grieving families, and may God continue to bless America.
I join the nation in expressing my shock and grief, and I can only express my condolences to the family, friends, and colleagues of this fine crew at their sudden and tragic losss.
Update 2: We celebrated with a family dinner at our favorite Chinese restaurant; then after the girls went to bed, my lovely wife and I watched Iron Monkey.
Update: Although the CNN story I just cited mentioned terrorism concerns in the third graf, the network's TV coverage is quoting officials as saying the mishap is unlikely to be terrorism-related. Of course, it's much too early to draw many conclusions, aside from the obvious: the Columbia appears to have broken up during re-entry.
Update 2:CNN is showing launch footage that seems to depict a chunk of debris falling from the large, orange external fuel tank and striking the Columbia's left wing; however, they're also reporting that mission controllers at the time assessed the occurrence as posing no threat.
Update 3: As I feared, CNN is now reporting that, as the shuttle was traveling at more than Mach 6, there's no way the crew could have ejected. This news, while not at all unexpected, is sad indeed.
I just finished Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. That only took about a month, although I've hardly been playing constantly during that time. Here's the review at Destroy All Monsters, but be aware I liked the game more than Musashi did. I agree that the fact that the player only takes the role of Solid Snake through less than one-third of the game is a disappointment. The game is talky, but that's in keeping with its predecesor. The espionage action the game puts the player through is basically enjoyable; the player is called upon to exercise many skills and use many gadgets (also a Metal Gear hallmark). I was a little let down by the ending--the final boss fight isn't much of a challenge, although the prior confrontation with the titular Metal Gears is among the more difficult videogame challenges I've experienced. But while the original Meral Gear Solid ended on a somewhat wistful, yet positive note, this incarnation leaves a much stronger and slightly dissatifying impression that the conspiracy the player has been battling has not really been defeated. (There's also, as far as I can tell, no opportunity for an alternate ending as there was in the earlier game.) Visually, though, the game is simply gorgeous, and it's quite a challenge to sneak through steel strucktures crawling with Russian guards. As I said, it's an enjoyable game, and it posed enough of a challenge that finishing it provides a sense of accomplishment. I expect to replay it in the near future.
I watched the Gen-X Cops DVD I got for Xmas again last night. Here's a massive gallery devoted to lovely Hong Kong-based film star Jaymee Ong (part of a fan site), who plays love interest Haze in this entertaining flick (interestingly, she delivers all her lines in Australian-accented English).
As soon as Bush apologizes to Gore for the remark about hair-dye and the thousand other petty personal insults he and his minions spun into a "character issue," and has Karl Rove tell his tame media attack dogs to cool it on John Kerry's haircut, I'll be happy to say no more about Bush's petty vanity.
But Bush's whole political shtick is to be the Personally Decent Man, by contrast to Clinton. There are two things wrong with that claim: its irrelevance, and its falsity. If the other side will admit to the irrelevance, I'll be happy to shut up about the falsity. I'd much rather talk about how he cooks his budget numbers.
A year ago in his State of the Union he promised that deficits would be "small and temporary." Now we're headed for $300 billion worth of red ink next year, and, according to Bush's own OMB Director, deficits stretching into the next decade. Yet Bush never condescended to explain to us why last year's promise is now inoperative. That's the kind of dishonesty we ought to be talking about. The personal stuff is merely metaphor.
I believe, in my heart, that there is a case to be made for removing Hussein from power. Yes, even if it means going to war to do it.
The problem is, I simply do not trust Bush to do it right.
Any proposed solution to a problem has to meet three criteria in order for me to support it:
Show that it is a problem that needs solving.
Show that there is a solution that will fix the problem*
Show that the solution will not cause as many problems, if not more so, than the original problem to be solved.
If any proposed solution fails to meet any of these three criteria then I will not support it. This is based on the conservative principle that "no solution" is better than a "bad solution".
IT goes on to reach much the same conclusion I've been forced to: "I do not trust Bush to tell me the truth about the real reason we are going to war. I do not trust him to use the war machine at his disposal in a judicious manner. And I do not trust him to either assess the consequences of his actions handle them when they come up to bite him (and us) in the ass."
The killer thing about this post is that Chris wrote it--this reluctant assessment that Bush has proved himself unfit to wage this war--after seeing a Fox News broadcast of the aftermath of an alleged Iraqi poison gas attack whose victims included children. From my reaction to his description, I'm sure I'd have found the images just as upsetting.
*Note: in the comment thread, I mentioned my belief that with regard to step 2, there's often more than one possible solution, so there's an additional burden to show that the favored plan is more desirable--lest risk/cost, more benefit, or both. I just am not seeing anything to support the notion that the Administration is willing to engage in an honest policy debate.
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
Let’s get something straight [emphasis in the original] once and for all.
This is not a choice between war and nothing.
No one...is assuming the best of Saddam.
And it’s completely dishonest to characterize the majority of Americans who are against unilateral war as believing as such.
Dubya said on Wednesday, “We're having an honest debate in this country.”
Well, we are. But you’re not participating.
And, as if it were necessarily, let me point out that the international community wasn't "doing nothing about Saddam even before Bush took office; sanctions were in place, and the US and UK patrolled the no-fly zones as they do today. One could argue the efficacy of the sanctions, but my perception of the weapons inspectors findings seems to indicate they were at least somewhat successful--no one can point to bulging weapons caches, and there seems to be no evidence at all that Saddam has a nuclear program. Bush's relentless repetition of this bogus dualism undersores the wakness of his case yet again. It implies that he isn't willing to argue his war as the best of all possible alternatives--just as better than nothing (which seems to be something of an administration theme for promoting half-baked policy).
I may not be unemployed, but I am wrapping up my current gig, so posting will be light for the next several days as I conclude several projects and settle into the new situation.
Excellent news! I've secured another consulting position at the company at which I currently work, so I won't be unemployed after all. A tremendous relief, needless to say.
My lovely wife was out late for choir practice last night; I had a bottle of champagne chilling in an ice bucket when she cam home, so she knew immediately.
Seriously, I love Winamp. It's compact, it works like a charm, and it's so efficient I ususally copy it onto my MP3 CD-ROMs so I can play them in any computer.
In asking Americans to accept his account of Iraqi misdeeds Tuesday night, President Bush issued a kind of promissory note: allegations now, evidence later.
Not for the first time but certainly in front of his biggest U.S. audience as well as those paying heed around the world Bush stated flatly that Iraq is hiding banned weapons and has had dealings with the al-Qaida terrorist network that conducted the Sept. 11 attacks. As before, he did not lay out the supporting facts.
In his State of the Union speech, Bush left Americans to take those points on faith, or to choose not to, at least a while longer. Officials say new evidence is coming soon.
One day after President Bush laid out his far-reaching domestic agenda in a nationwide address, Democrats and a few key Republicans raised serious questions about his vision for lowering taxes, restraining spending and changing the health care system.
Even though the president enjoys GOP control of both houses of Congress, a confluence of Democrats' rising anger and moderate Republicans' wariness is producing some of the biggest obstacles of his presidency. Senate Democratic centrists, who worked with Bush to enact tax cuts and education reforms in the past, are furious with the president's tactics in last year's elections and are refusing to work with him on key policies.
Bush burned many of his bridges to Democrats with his aggressive campaign tactics last fall against Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Max Cleland of Georgia. After Landrieu voted with Bush on tax cuts and his war resolution, the president's political team ripped into her record during her tough, but ultimately successful, campaign to win reelection in a December runoff.
More troubling to Democrats was the administration's treatment of Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. The White House was deeply involved in a campaign that questioned Cleland's patriotism because he supported civil service protections for employees of the new Department of Homeland Security. Cleland lost his race.
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." --Hoseah 8:7
Nathan Newman writes about "stealth" judicial candidate Miguel Estrada, noting that the Right seems to be employing a little--gasp!--affirmative action in recommending him:
Here is a very young candidate (only 41) with relatively little experience and almost no writings of note (any that exist from his days in the Justice Department are being withheld for fear of what they would reveal about his rightwing views).
So how do they sell him? As a Latino, purely and simply.
...Like the President who nominated him, Estrada was born on third base and likes to brag that he hit a triple. Back in Honduras where he was raised, his family was well-off and well-established. His father was also a lawyer and Estrada studied in private schools his whole life.
Nothing wrong with that per se, although it's reflective of conservative viewpoints that they think the American Dream is sliding from privileged public schools to rightwing patronage jobs into high office, while never having published or said anything of note before that point.
But selling that as "the American Dream" is an insult to families that have struggled and dealt with the real racism facing poor latinos every day.
