Chilly

Most of these lawsuits aren't frivolous. A Harvard study in 2006 revealed that: They found that in other cases, actual errors did NOT result in payment or other results: The system is slow and expensive, just like anything else run by the Government. However, the cases which are going to trial are far from "frivolous", and most of the cases without errors are being weeded out before trial.

How does this type of thinking even enter the minds of the "experts" planning this type of thing? Democracy building 101 stresses the importance of security and keeping outside influences from getting a foothold in the country. Given the instability in the Middle East, its amazing that this was even considered, much less implemented. Were these functions a success, though? If the coalition forces weren't focused on implementing strong democratic and security forces, which it seems as though they weren't, then the Iraqis took over institutions that were destined for failure. I'm really just arguing semantics here, but if it was doomed from the start I'm not sure it could be a "success", though I see your point that it wasn't completely failure either. Whats the point of this whole "surge" then? The only thing I can figure out in all of this is that its just congress and the President playing politics. The President wants to make it look like he's doing something (when he's really doing nothing) and the Democrats want to make it look like they are doing something (when they are really doing nothing). Is there any actual military basis behind the President's plan? I think the Democratic response might help them right now, but ultimately hurt them in 2008, which is why I think their actions are a mistake. When the Presidency is up for grabs next year, the Republicans have great talking points for the Presidency, which you outlined above. The Republican candidates get to take the position that their party has tried stuff in the past, they messed up, but they have the credibility to lead the country out of the war (McCain being a vet, Guliani with 9/11, etc). They can easily attack the Democrats on Iraq for not doing anything about the Iraq situation and bring up past promises. The Democratic leaders for the Presidency have hardly any credibility on the issue, and since they are in Congress, are easily attacked about this. It seems as though the Democrats need to do something to cover their own asses for 08, something stronger than simply saying "we want you to stop but we can't make you". I guess the Democrats could argue that the President wouldn't let them do anything and didn't want to work together, but that seems a little hollow at this point. The Dems knew that he wasn't going to work with Congress before the 06 elections.

Cripes isn't too bad of a guy for being a god damned Sooner.

Jon Stewart last night articulated a question to Chuckie "Imaginary Friends" Schumer that has been on my mind about the handling of the Iraq war. Basically the question is, "Why does it seem like we are only seeing symbolic actions in ending this war?" The President and Republicans surge plan for 20,000 troops seems like a whole lot of nothing. John McCain, explaining the idea behind the surge, characterized it as a complete change in strategy. Instead of enter, clear, and leave, the US will now be entering, clearing, and holding in order to ensure security and build the institutions necessary for Democracy to take hold. I'm amazed that this wasn't the strategy beforehand, as even my entry level classes on building Democracy have noted that security from internal and external forces and influences is a fundamental need for Democracy to take hold. I'm no military expert, and thus I could very well be mistaken here, but isn't 20,000 extra troops a low figure for that type of strategy? And isn't this not a surge, but rather a long-term strategy that should have happened from the get-go? Clearing and holding to build democratic institutions is something that takes YEARS, which a surge is not. The Democratic response to me is equally perplexing. They are passing a non-binding agreement against the action. Great, but what the hell is that going to do? The Democrats are saying we don't have time to wait, yet their stance is to pass a non-binding agreement? Schumer says that this is only the first step, and they are doing it to make sure a bill with teeth doesn't get filibustered. Hey Schumer, if it is really that urgent, and you don't want any more troops to die, why don't you do something now? Your party controls the flow of money, in case you forgot. One of the things that these actions seem to show is that there aren't any real solutions for Iraq. If both sides thought we were f--ed, and are just playing politics, these are exactly the type of actions that we'd see. No real moves either way, but enough to satisfy each sides base, until there was absolutely no support for it any longer and the politicians which screwed up were out of office so they wouldn't have to admit their mistakes. I'm not sure that this is the case, but to me it is a possibility.

Yep, at the few Dallas games I've been to, they've sold out and have been packed.

One of the things I noticed on the fins board was that they all wanted him to be their next OC. I'm not quite sure why all the fans love him or why he has the reputation he does, but they did.

I'm not sure Crowder is a 3rd round pick. Blalock is more likely to be a guard at the NFL level and should be a 1st rounder.

And thus AD's point that he's a constitutionalist, lol.

You mean Mackovic's players? Yeah, they haven't done too well, Leonard Davis and Mike Williams. Of the current staff, there are only 2 linemen in the NFL, Derrick Dockery and Jonathan Scott. Dockery's done well for the 'Skins, and this was Scott's rookie year (he was a 7th round pick, didn't play too much). Mack Brown's players have done pretty decent for themselves in the NFL, including: - Casey Hampton - Quentin Jammer - Derrick Johnson - DD Lewis - Nathan Vasher - Roy Williams - Vince Young - Michael Huff - David Thomas

Oh yeah, those Texas players suck in the NFL.

Well, I did cut my hair since the football game.

Not sure if anyone is familiar with DJ Tiesto on this board, but if you like Pirates of the Caribbean and/or electronica, this song is worth checking out... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZqED7ONYJs

Ice-T is awesome, not because of his wife, but because he's in a Law & Order show.

I think Jauron has the potential to be a better HC.

Yup.

Free Onion in Austin for the win!

Vince Young is still yo' daddy.

Does your former University offer career services? Most colleges/universities offer this for alumni who are trying to find careers. I know here at UT each college has one.

Damn him, smoking weed and such. Horrible, horrible person!

Yeah, it looked like he was coked up to me too.

The Weather Channel is evil, but Accuweather (who Rick Santorum supported), tried to get all National Weather Service data to not be released because they were doing it for free, and the same data Accuweather charged for, they didn't cross into any political or cultural regions. I find it humerous that people think that there are still enterprises in the US which aren't affected by politics.

Oh noe, Belichek "snubbed" Manning, what a HORRIBLE person.

Watch out, you'll be labeled a Patriot homer.

Go Bears.

While that may or may not be true, thats not whats going to be going through Nates head.