ADDED: I wrote this post late at night (though not as late as it looks — I'm in the Pacific Time Zone and the blog set to Central Time). Let me explain my position. I don't mind the mockery. Have your fun. It's like the "Ecce Homo" retouching, perhaps. What I really object to is the apology. I wish the artist had stood her ground. She's knuckled under to pressure, but I wish she had stood by her work and her stature as an artist and said: "You people are in thrall to you idea of the 'pretty boy,' but I was there. I saw the man in person and not on the football field where he's in control and in his glory. I saw him in a context that you haven't seen. I was not there to show you the mental picture you already have, the controlled media image of a 'pretty boy.' I saw his character. I saw his soul. And if you laugh, it is your own shallowness you hear. I am an artist, and I showed you the truth. This is how Tom Brady really looks.
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
If they had picked Jim Carrey to play Emperor Palpatine in "Star Wars", that's pretty much what he would have looked like.
More offensive than a Muhammad cartoon.
You wouldn't protest if it was Aaron Rogers...
What were you doing up at that hour?
It's not so much her inserting her editorial opinion, it's that the drawing isn't recognizably him. She should take a course in caricature, I guess if she wants to editorialize, or start practicing if she intended it to be life like. Either way the drawing is not up to professional standards.
By that I mean the drawing and her response are both well worthy of ridicule, as is Tom Brady.
I wonder how many people who are upset with Brady for destroying his phone are upset with Lois Lerner for destroying hers?
The weekly outrage over the insignificant in America came early.
The larger issue is the court wading into territory heretofore reserved for the league.
" tim in vermont said...
I wonder how many people who are upset with Brady for destroying his phone are upset with Lois Lerner for destroying hers?"
Lois who?
Was she in the new superman movie?
The defenses offered by rabid Patriots fans are not unlike the defenses offered by Hillary fans. The new trend seems to be "my side, right or wrong, with no limit!"
While the Patriots "scandal" is at least a fun diversion, the Clinton mess has consequences for our country. Nixon was finally stopped by his own party refusing to back him any further. Will Democrats also have a limit when it comes to Hillary?
I am not sure I defend the Patriots, but I don't care that much, if that is what you are asking. I am sure that all of the Yankee fans felt terrible about Bucky Dent's home run too. Pitchers have been doctoring baseballs forever "against the rules."
The end of that SB was and ending for the ages, and I am happy to have witnessed it. I guess I don't blame you guys for hating on the Pats, but just because I don't hate them myself, doesn't make me "rabid." It makes me not a hater.
Imagine if the Red Sox had called the league and had Dent's bat seized and examined and a huge investigation resulted.. LOL. Wouldn't have happened. The game was over, the game counted. I am not bringing it up to whine about it, just to recall what it was like when we didn't live under the rule of the whiners.
"I guess I don't blame you guys for hating on the Pats, but just because I don't hate them myself, doesn't make me "rabid." It makes me not a hater."
I don't hate the Pats (except when they play the Ravens) but do think they cheated and need to own up to that. I wasn't referring to your comment but rather my endless Facebook feed of Patriot defenders (a lot of friends from Maine) who have gone really overboard over all this. Fortunately most of them seem to be Sanders supporters rather than Clintonites or I'd have to hide their feeds!
"Imagine if the Red Sox had called the league and had Dent's bat seized and examined and a huge investigation resulted.. LOL. Wouldn't have happened. The game was over, the game counted. I am not bringing it up to whine about it, just to recall what it was like when we didn't live under the rule of the whiners."
I'm not too familiar with the Bucky Dent issue (I think that was in the '70s) but if the MLB suspected a corked bat in violation of a rule against it, they absolutely should have investigated. Otherwise you're just encouraging cheating.
A good example is the steroid problem--I don't blame players for using roids, as their careers are on the line and not taking them could be a competitive disadvantage. The problem is the league having a rule and not strictly enforcing it, giving a difficult choice to players who not stupidly decided to risk it as the rewards were greater than the risk.
With the ball inflation, it was stupid for the NFL to let the teams control the balls rather than the officials. Either have no rule at all, or strictly enforce it--otherwise the game loses integrity.
I also protest. Fuck those ignoramuses who know nothing of which they speak. As one who draws and who spent many years drawing from the life model, I can tell you: drawing well and accurately from life takes not just skill, but time and close consideration of the model. Courtroom sketch artists, who must draw courtrooms and the many people in them in the moment--the subjects moving, not holding still for the artist--have a very challenging job. The point is not to capture an exquisite likeness but merely to represent the proceedings as they occurred.
The point is not to capture an exquisite likeness but merely to represent the proceedings as they occurred.
So "recognizable" = "exquisite"?
Belichick teams cheat. That's hardly a secret. But it doesn't make sense to me that the quarterback is the one responsible for maintaining footballs within the NFL guidelines. They're not under the quarterback's control any more than they are under many other players and staff.
Why aren't the refs guaranteeing the balls?
Ted Nugent: I Like to Watch Megyn Kelly While Naked, Loading My Gun
The word "bullied" is poorly chosen. The artist was mocked, and some of the parodies were funny. The few positive things to come out of this sorry "deflategate" saga.
The sketch is honest about Brady's strong chin and deep-set eyes. He looks to have had a bad hair day in court.
Oh goodie. ARM has a new obsession.
"Belichick teams cheat. That's hardly a secret. But it doesn't make sense to me that the quarterback is the one responsible for maintaining footballs within the NFL guidelines. They're not under the quarterback's control any more than they are under many other players and staff."
It's one of the things I hate about the NFL. It basically enables cheating and then gets all high and holy about it once it's found out. Just like they gave Ray Rice a slap on the wrist until the video emerged--which showed exactly what they already knew!--and then it's time for a bigger punishment.
I could go on about a lot of other awful things about the league, but it'd take a book. It'd be nice if some competing league could break their monopoly so there'd be some incentive to run it better.
It's a phony story so why not a phony sketch ?
"So 'recognizable' = 'exquisite'?"
I was being arch...but my point still holds.
So, Ann, mocking someone supposedly a "professional" for being incredibly incompetent constitutes "bullying?" Whatever.
File this under- shit stupid people get outraged over.
"So...mocking someone supposedly a "professional" for being incredibly incompetent constitutes 'bullying?'"
You haven't shown that you have either the experience or expertise to be able to appraise this artist as "incredibly incompetent," or to offer such insulting commentary on the artist's skills. Try making multiple drawings of a room full of people in motion, in color, under time constraints, before you condescend to call this artist incompetent. She is, in fact, quite competent and skilled. She was not tasked with creating a portrait but of representing the whole of what was happening in the courtroom.
"You haven't shown that you have either the experience or expertise to be able to appraise this artist as "incredibly incompetent"
Says the art expert.
OK "Credibly incompetent."
What is purpose a courtroom sketch artist in this day and age? Doesn't it seem like a terribly anachronistic remnant of a by-gone era?
teej said, "What is purpose a courtroom sketch artist in this day and age? Doesn't it seem like a terribly anachronistic remnant of a by-gone era?"
Yes.
The SCOTUS doesn't want to be filmed.
The Hillary doesn't want her emails to be read.
When someone acts as though there's something to hide, there's something to hide.
teej, many courtrooms do not allow cameras for fear that the presence of a camera will violate juror anonymity and affect the behavior of the participants (remember the OJ trial? Even the judge was mugging for TV time). So it may seem anachronistic, but there are good reasons for the survival of the courtroom sketch artist.
He looks deflated.
Guess I have to point out yet again that green-and-golden boy Aaron Rodgers is an admitted ball inflation cheat.
Brady looked a little deflated.
Oh, c'mon, you know you were thinking it. Do I have to do everything for you people?
Robert Cook: As much as your opinion means to me (zero), I don't have to prove my expertise to you or anyone else in order to have an opinion about an artist.
I'm no professional artist, and not much of a football fan, but I could draw Tom Brady's face from memory better than she did.
Zeb Quinn: As I read your comment, I thought you were going to say "local community college art program" which is also true. :)
Actually,I wouldn't doubt that she may have been going for that
Looks like I don't.
Robert Cook,
Is your position that one must possess equivalent or superior skills to successfully be able to critique someone else's work? How would that even work?
I mean, in my adult life, I saw numerous people who had never served a single day in the military, diplomatic or intelligence service who felt infinitely qualified to critique the strategy in the War in Iraq and (later) the War in Afghanistan -- who were they to question a credentialed Ambassador (Bremer) or a three-star general (Sanchez)?
I've watched (on TV) homeowners who don't know a thing about construction work question the low quality work done by the contractors hired to renovate their homes -- what business do these yuppie couples have daring to question the work of this qualified construction worker?
I've seen people (and I've been one of them, on occasion) critique the quality of the food they are served at a restaurant. How dare we do that when we don't know anything about how to cook such dishes???
I could go on, but I think the point is that criticizing something one identifies as being substandard or low quality does not imply the critic can do a better job. It merely means they recognize low quality work when they see it.
Maybe the artist is revealing some Dorian-Grey stuff going on with Brady.
Try making multiple drawings of a room full of people in motion, in color, under time constraints, before you condescend to call this artist incompetent.
I guess I would buy that if they were moving her sketchpad around as she was trying to capture it all.
Try making multiple drawings of a room full of people in motion, in color, under time constraints, before you condescend to call this artist incompetent.
Oh Pooh, the Honey's too high in the tree...
Robert Cook said...
You haven't shown that you have either the experience or expertise to be able to appraise this artist as "incredibly incompetent," or to offer such insulting commentary on the artist's skills.
The only qualification one needs in this case is to have seen other courtroom sketch artist's pictures of other people whose appearance you know. Most of us are thus qualified.
Try making multiple drawings of a room full of people in motion, in color, under time constraints, before you condescend to call this artist incompetent.
What an absurd standard. Now I can't call a professional quarterback who plays badly incompetent because I've never been a professional quarterback?
"You haven't shown that you have either the experience or expertise to be able to appraise President Bush as "incredibly incompetent," or to offer such insulting commentary on the presidents's skills. Try making multiple decisions about a world full of events in motion, in real time, with no chance for hindsight, before you condescend to call President Bush incompetent."
I am totally sure that one day back in, oh say 2006, Robert Cook uttered the words above in defense of a president that he simply felt was misunderstood and being judged too harshly. Right?
As always at Althouse, it comes down to insect politics.
Brady looks like BrundleFly:
https://emmakwall1.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/thefly51.jpg
rather my endless Facebook feed of Patriot defenders
My feed is full of Patriot bashers (A lot of friends from South Florida) I just post a Vine of the winning interception sometimes on their wall.
"My feed is full of Patriot bashers (A lot of friends from South Florida) I just post a Vine of the winning interception sometimes on their wall."
I think Facebook uses its information about our opinions and fills our feed with everything we disagree with. For some reason I'm only getting political posts that piss me off. I think it's to encourage us to comment and post in response.
My Facebook feed says absolutely nothing about Tom Brady! Booyah!
Courtroom sketches in general are never very accurate. Brady’s facial features are so regular that they would be difficult to caricaturize. He’s handsome. There’s no prominent features to exaggerate. The heat is about the fans’ love of Brady – not the drawing per se.
I think Brady will eventually win the battle in court through a civil suit – IF the NFL doesn’t cave before that. Football is his livelihood and I’ve observed over the years that judges are kind of severe when it comes to powerful entities depriving individuals of their ability to earn a living, especially when there’s no proof that Brady broke any rules. The NFL cannot just do anything it wants to any NFL player.
Brady would probably look better than that waking up after six months of chemotherapy and a three day bender.
"I'm no professional artist, and not much of a football fan, but I could draw Tom Brady's face from memory better than she did."
No, you couldn't.
I reject the premise that people are "outraged" by her rendering. Sure, they are mocking her, but most are having fun with it, and the photoshops are hilarious.
It's not nice to make a woman cry. She's not on social media/twitter, so she doesn't understand how merciless Twitter is.
"Courtroom sketches in general are never very accurate. Brady’s facial features are so regular that they would be difficult to caricaturize. He’s handsome. There’s no prominent features to exaggerate. The heat is about the fans’ love of Brady – not the drawing per se."
A very sensible observation.
"My Facebook feed says absolutely nothing about Tom Brady! Booyah!"
You clearly need some Mainers on your feed! Right now mine is "Bernie Sanders", "Patriots/Deflategate" and "look at this thing I just shot in my backyard".
At least it's summer, the winter photos are sort of sad unless you're really into snow.
"I am totally sure that one day back in, oh say 2006, Robert Cook uttered the words above in defense of a president that he simply felt was misunderstood and being judged too harshly. Right?"
No, because I don't believe Bush was incompetent. I believe he committed war crimes, and that he told lies to justify our illegal invasion of Iraq, but this has to do with the government's agenda, which was intentional and had nothing to do with what we were told was the agenda, (as it rarely is).
Her drawing of his face depicts Emotional Truth.
And maybe some Cubism.
I am Laslo.
Edouard Manet would not have made a good courtroom artist:
My main worry always is to have regular sittings. When I start something I always tremble to think that sitters will let me down, or that I won't see them as often as I would like, or that the next time will be under conditions I don't like. They come; they pose; and then they go; saying to themselves, "He can finish that by himself." No, no one ever finishes anything "by himself," not unless he finishes a picture on the same day as it is begun; otherwise, one has to make several fresh starts and take a long time over it.
That quote is invoked in reference to this which reputedly took over 40 sittings. She actually looks a little like Tom Brady.
Robert Cook:
"No, you couldn't"???? You seriously are an idiot, aren't you? No wonder you're a joke on this site.
Grackle:
So you are saying that courtroom sketches are supposed to be caricatures? I don't think you're correct in that assumption.
Brady's regular features obviously would make him easy to draw. In any case, I'm sure that one of the rules for the government employed sketch "artists" is that human beings should look like humans if at all possible. This artist couldn't manage that. Must be a Giants fan.
I, for one, protest.
Yeah, you B.F.A. artsy types stick together. The drawing looks almost nothing like Brady. Go back to your old text books and see why representational art is supposed to be "representational."
I reject the premise that people are "outraged" by her rendering.
Outraged is the new amused.
Not a Giants fan, if any fanbase has a right to lord it over Patriot fans and Brady, it's Giants fans. They would have drawn him as a delicate flower.
"...I think the point is that criticizing something one identifies as being substandard or low quality does not imply the critic can do a better job. It merely means they recognize low quality work when they see it."
The more one knows about (or is able to actually do) that which one intends to critique, the more informed one's critique will usually be. Critics who cannot act or paint or sing may certainly offer critiques of those who do, but they better back up their lack of ability with a shitload of knowledge about that of which they speak. The mass of people critiquing the sketch of Tom Brady--who, as I am not a footfall fan, I had never heard of--don't recognize what they're critiquing, as they don't know the conditions under which the drawing was made or what it requires to make these drawings, and they assume incorrectly the courtroom artist's intent is to make a likeness of the subjects. The primary intent is to provide a visual representation of legal proceedings that will otherwise have no visual representation. To the degree likenesses can be made--which is always variable according not just to the artists' respective skills, but to the conditions under which any given drawing or set of drawings is made--all the better, but this is subordinate to the purpose of making a representation of the proceedings overall.
Maybe, Robert, if you had ever heard of Tom Brady, and maybe were you able to recognize him if you saw him on TV or on the street, you would be qualified to comment on whether the likeness achieved minimal professional standards.
Just saying.
"Brady's regular features obviously would make him easy to draw."
To the contrary, the more "regular" a person's features are, the more difficult to capture them accurately. It is the obvious irregularities in people's faces or figures that are more easily captured.
"Maybe, Robert, if you had ever heard of Tom Brady, and maybe were you able to recognize him if you saw him on TV or on the street, you would be qualified to comment on whether the likeness achieved minimal professional standards."
No, because I saw the photographs of him along with the reproductions of the sketch. The sketch certainly achieves the professional standards for the purposes intended.
"No, because I don't believe Bush was incompetent. I believe he committed war crimes, and that he told lies to justify our illegal invasion of Iraq, but this has to do with the government's agenda, which was intentional and had nothing to do with what we were told was the agenda, (as it rarely is)."
I'm no Iraq War defender, but there's a lot wrong in this statement. The war was only "illegal" insofar as Congress never declared war, which then makes every military action except the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish War, and WWs I and II illegal. And unlike most non-declared wars, Bush got a bipartisan congressional authorization.
And lies? Passing off information that isn't true is not the same thing as "lying" in that you may have believed it was true when you passed it off. Billions of people through history weren't "lying" when they said the Sun revolved around the Earth, even though they were wrong. Bush surely believed he was going to find WMDs, and that the war would go quickly and the occupation would be relatively swift. He was wrong, but the idea that he knew he was wrong is illogical--why would he intentionally set out to prove how wrong he was?
The "agenda" was not hidden--Bush and Co. believed they were going to begin the transformation of the Middle East for the better. There's really no more logical reason why they would have done this. It may have been a mistake, but it was hardly some secret plot to serve nefarious ends.
It was propaganda. Make the bad boy look it.
Right, representational art and talent requirements for a job are inherently unfair and bourgeois.
I guess by your standards, a sketch artist and a burger flipper could both be paid the same with no loss to the economy!
I bet you would have no problem with putting up any schlub who could pick up a football and throw it ten yards in there as an NFL quarterback to, so that we can eliminate the outrageous salaries that the requirement for extreme competence and nearly unique talents produces too!
It's simple Marxism. Requirements for high levels of competence drive income inequality!
I'm fine with it if she simply recognized it wasn't her best work. We all have those days, right?
It would be fun to be the jumping-off point for agood-natured meme.
"The war was only "illegal" insofar as Congress never declared war...."
It was illegal under our obligations as signatories to the UN Charter--which, under the Constitution, is the law of the land--which prohibits not just waging of war but even threatening war against other member nations, unless in defense against imminent or already commenced attacks by the other nation, or unless approved by a vote of the UN Security Council. Neither condition pertained in our invasion of Iraq.
"Passing off information that isn't true is not the same thing as lying in that you may have believed it was true when you passed it off."
They knew the information they were conveying was not true. I can't say for sure what Bush knew--but when I say "Bush lied," I mean: the Bush Administration lied--but the people getting things done, from Cheney on down, knew very well how little the intelligence supported their claims. The language they used was very carefully crafted to create the impression in our minds of things they knew were not true, such as Hussein's phantasmal links with Al Qaeda and 9/11. They never actually said Hussein was connected with Al Qaeda or 9/11, but they made claims that sounded as if that's what they were saying. Many Americans, and many soldiers fighting in Iraq, certainly believed we were there because of Hussein's supposed complicity in 9/11.
"Bush and Co. believed they were going to begin the transformation of the Middle East for the better. There's really no more logical reason why they would have done this. It may have been a mistake, but it was hardly some secret plot to serve nefarious ends."
Au contraire. Their agenda had nothing to do with bettering Iraq. It had to do with asserting American hegemony over the region, and with gaining control over access to Iraq's oil fields, to benefit Western oil interests. America is an empire, and we employ the military to serve our political and economic interests. That this is always couched in terms of "bettering" or "liberating" some other peoples is no more true today than it has ever been. As General Smedley Butler said back in the 30s, the military acts as the muscle for American corporate prerogatives.
She's the Cecilia Giménez of courtroom sketch artists.
"Right, representational art and talent requirements for a job are inherently unfair and bourgeois."
Not in the least. As I said, this sketch artist certainly displays the necessary professional skill to serve the purposes required. Those criticizing her simply don't understand what those purposes are or what the professional requirements are.
We can all see the pictures Robert. Just sayin'
It would be fun to be the jumping-off point for a good-natured meme.
That's what Bill Cosby thought too!
Critics who cannot act or paint or sing may certainly offer critiques of those who do, but they better back up their lack of ability with a shitload of knowledge about that of which they speak.
I am reliably informed by the left that reality, truth, and art are not objective, and that it's all about how it makes one feel. That thuglife graffiti deserves to be respected and that I ought to clap like a seal because a profanity-laced tirade is no less 'worthy' of being called music than Beethoven.
That there is no objective reason to read Homer and Shakespeare except the inertia of white male privelguz.
But now you're telling me that these things can, in fact, be observably and objectively bad... but the hoi polloi better keep mouths shut unless they've got an art history degree.
If the left isn't disqualifying objectivity, it's disqualifying you. The topic in question changes, but the method remains the same.
Wilbur was a subject of a TV courtroom artist in a murder trial 30 years ago. Wilbur was not the defendant.
I wished I had asked the artist for the drawings. He did a good job.
I LOL'd at the Tweet describing the Brady sketch as a bad guy on Scooby Doo.
T in Vt:
I celebrated that SB - and I'm a GIANTS fan!
(That's how much more I hate Seattle.)
JOB
I didn't think the sketch was all that bad. She captured the essence of Brady. But I for one don't think Tom Brady is all that attractive. If he wasn't a pro quarterback, most wouldn't give him a second look. But the job and the supermodel wife give him cred. To me, he looks like a mouth-breather. I find him much closer to the Eli Manning school of looks than I do, say the Aaron Rodgers school of looks, who is legitimately handsome.
Au contraire. Their agenda had nothing to do with bettering Iraq. It had to do with asserting American hegemony over the region, and with gaining control over access to Iraq's oil fields, to benefit Western oil interests.
Well, the US has no "hegemony" over the region today. There are numerous Arab Christians, Yazidis, and ordinary Iraqis who would wish for that purported "hegemony" back, except they can't because they've been killed by ISIS.
And if one is looking for a whooper of a lie, then "it had to do ... with gaining control over access to Iraq's oil fields, to benefit Western oil interests" is one Hell of candidate for whopper of the century. And we're only 15 years into the century.
"It was illegal under our obligations as signatories to the UN Charter..."
That's a pretty weak reed--the whole point of the war was that we beleived it was to prevent an imminent attack. Like I said, it may have been wrong, but not illegal.
"They never actually said Hussein was connected with Al Qaeda or 9/11, but they made claims that sounded as if that's what they were saying. Many Americans, and many soldiers fighting in Iraq, certainly believed we were there because of Hussein's supposed complicity in 9/11."
Bush and Co. were pretty clear that they believed Hussein was connected with terrorists, but never even came close to implying that he was connected with the 9/11attacks. But you think they should be blamed because some low information voters took it upon themselves to make that connection? If some morons thought Hitler masterminded Pearl Harbor, should we blame FDR for "lying" because they made that assumption? That's a pretty broad definition of "lying."
"Au contraire. Their agenda had nothing to do with bettering Iraq. It had to do with asserting American hegemony over the region, and with gaining control over access to Iraq's oil fields, to benefit Western oil interests. America is an empire, and we employ the military to serve our political and economic interests."
If by "hegemony" you mean "gain an ally in the region" then I suppose that's true. But that's such a constant and obvious goal in foreign policy--to gain friends where possible--that I hardly find it damning. As for our oil interests, why would they want a risky, volatile war right smack in the middle of the oil region when the more obvious move--relax sanctions against Saddam--is right there? And if you already own oilfields outside of Iraq, wouldn't you be better off keeping Iraqi oil off the market? It's not as though U.S. oil companies got some sweetheart deal out of Iraq after we invaded--nor would it have been realistic to expect that as it'd be obviously poltiically damaging to the president to allow that. Entrenched econmomic interests prefer stability over risk, and if anything the invasion took place despite those interests, not because of them.
Apologizing is the New World Order. Even the Pope is apologizing for burning people alive during the dark ages. As if they need his stinking apology.
I saw his character. I saw his soul. And if you laugh, it is your own shallowness you hear. I am an artist, and I showed you the truth. This is how Tom Brady really looks.
So she's a Dolphin's fan. LOL
I still think that all that is fine, but even in editorial cartoons motivated by viscous mockery, you can tell who is being mocked by looking at the picture.
The cheek bones are completely wrong, though they are what the cheek bones of steroid users come to look like over time, I don't think there is any talk of Brady using steroids, and his cheek bones look nothing like that, so the shape of his face is completely wrong. Give us something to anchor the drawing to a person. That's why I say she is incompetent, she wanted to editorialize, but didn't have the requisite skill.
T in Vt:
I celebrated that SB - and I'm a GIANTS fan!
(That's how much more I hate Seattle.)
JOB
That's easy, the Giants are the only team in the league to whom the Patriots must tug the forelock, so there is no hate from you guys.
Too bad the jig is up, or some other team could deflate the FB by a couple of pounds and win 4 out of 6 Super Bowls! Maybe even your team!
The larger issue is the court wading into territory heretofore reserved for the league.
Well, that would be the fault of the league, no? They're the ones who filed the case.
The problem is the league having a rule and not strictly enforcing it,
An additional problem is that MLB didn't have specific rules for certain substances. Andro was not banned until after the McGwire/Sosa HR showdown. Never mind the fact that a guy like Barry Bonds never failed any drug test at any time, but is still pilloried for his steroid use. Opposing pitchers were also not immune to these substances, so who knows how effective the steroids actually were? Statistical data suggests that there is a correlation (and perhaps causation) between the offense of that era and steroid use. The most likely reason is less fatigue and injury-return times rather than out-and-out muscle.
I see Thornbirds-era Richard Chamberlain.
All of the resulting memes are fun, though.
Try making multiple drawings of a room full of people in motion, in color, under time constraints, before you condescend to call this artist incompetent.
One needn't be a hen to judge an egg. The sketch was preposterous.
The hens disagree, but they would, wouldn't they?
Tim in Vt: "so there is no hate from you guys"
No more than anyone else, anyway...
OK, maybe probably just a little bit less, considering the multiple strands of coaching DNA you share with us...
JOB
Oh Yea said...
He looks deflated.
HAH!
The only post worth reading.
TIL Althouse really, really does not like Tom Brady.
Althouse really, really does not like Tom Brady.
I am betting she finds the small hands a turn-off.
"That's a pretty weak reed--the whole point of the war was that we beleived it was to prevent an imminent attack."
1. No one believed there was going to be an imminent attack on America by Iraq.
2. It's not a matter of "believing" there may be an imminent attack, but that an attack is clearly imminent, (if not already underway). Iraq would have had a legitimate basis to launch an attack against us in the days before we invaded, as it was plainly apparent that our unprovoked attack on them was imminent.
"Bush and Co. were pretty clear that they believed Hussein was connected with terrorists, but never even came close to implying that he was connected with the 9/11attacks."
Sure they did. That's why so many Americans believed he was, and why so many soldiers fighting in Iraq thought they were fighting against a (or the) source of the attacks. You can deny it now, but they certainly did their damndest to imply a connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda and 9/11.
"If by 'hegemony' you mean 'gain an ally in the region' then I suppose that's true."
No, I mean gain political dominance in the region.
"As for our oil interests, why would they want a risky, volatile war right smack in the middle of the oil region when the more obvious move--relax sanctions against Saddam--is right there?"
Who knows? Why do gangsters take over the territories of other gangs when they could simply form alliances? Distrust? Greed? The Bush adminsistration was so puffed up they believed we would win the war and gain control easily and swiftly. They did not think there would be a "risky, volatile war" after a month or two. They thought it would be a repeat of Desert Storm...though that prior war was stopped at Iraq's borders because Bush Sr. didn't want to get embroiled in the quagmire he knew it would be, and which the war-planners in his son's administration were certain would not be the case. Bush/Cheney even fired General Shinseki when he told them they would need vastly more troops and many more years than they claimed in order to secure the country.
"And if you already own oilfields outside of Iraq, wouldn't you be better off keeping Iraqi oil off the market?"
Wouldn't it be better still to simply acquire the Iraqi oil, to sell or withhold from the world market as you wished?
"It's not as though U.S. oil companies got some sweetheart deal out of Iraq after we invaded--nor would it have been realistic to expect that as it'd be obviously politically damaging to the president to allow that."
What makes you think they haven't?
"...if anything the invasion took place despite those interests, not because of them."
Hahahaha! Have you forgotten the meetings held between Dick Cheney and representatives of the major oil companies, the particulars of which have been kept confidential, and which were even denied for as long as possible? What was that all about? In retrospect, one can guess it was like a meeting of the five mafia families, discussing how they were going to carve up the spoils of a particular area that would soon be under mafia control.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा