the confed cup rolls on in brazil amid protests over the billions being spent on stadiums for next years world cup while vital services go underfunded. but more importantly today pits spain v. tahiti, one of the possibly most lopsided games in recent memory. spain is ranked #1 in the world and tahiti is at #138 nestled comfortably between syria and afghanistan. i just turned it on and spain has scored twice in the last five minutes to go up 3 - 0.  the spanish b-squad (all but one of the starters from the last game is out of the lineup) is better than almost every other countrys main squad so this is essentially batting practice for them. the division (now 4 - 0) that represents oceania (the highest ranked team is new zealand at #57) makes the north american division that the us is in look like a powerhouse which it most decidedly is not. they might want to think about reconfiguring that in the future.   

yesterday italy and brazil secured semifinal bids but the other division may not be decided until sunday if uruguay beats nigeria later today. 

5 - 0. they said at halftime the betting line was 8 - 0. and they have a legitimate reason to run up the score as goal differential is the deciding factor should there be a tie in the group...

oh, and game seven of the nba finals is tonight. hard to imagine it could get any better than the end of game six. the big question is will lebron wear a headband? and if you know what im talking about i pity you as much as i do myself.

6 - 0.

I wonder how the delusional right will spin this ...

Wow. This doesn't look good for the boys in charge. Looks like a new book is about to come out. Richard Butler will have an op-ed piece in the NY Times this weekend on the issue. He (Butler) said this on CNN by way of explanation:

The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.

Now let's see. The White House has appointed National Security Council Advisor Zalmay Khalilzad to serve as Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan. Apparetnly he worked for Unocal. As did Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's interim Prez. (Although this thread has some arguments as to why this might not be as ridiculous as it sounds.)

Kind of makes this whole conspiracty theory thing I linked to on 9/24 (alas, on a private page, because I was actually chicken) seem not that crazy.

Kind of makes you wonder who was in attendance at the secret Cheney energy summit? They've gone to some crazy lengths to surpress that information.

stock for the gillette company soared on the exchange today at the prospect of an almost clean shaven afghanistan. their new ad campaign plastered on hastily assembled billboards amidst the rubble of kabul extols the virutes of 'gillette: the new face of freedom'. but dont confuse that with lancomes 'le nouveau visage de la liberté' campaign for women. the french beauty multinational have set up make-up booths in mazir e sharif to instruct the afghani women in the art and ritual of face painting. no more blaming the taliban for being dateless on a friday night, ladies!

The San Jose Mercury (aka Murky News) printed three letters to the editor which questioned the Bush administration's bombing of Afghanistan. Wierd. Is this a sign that it's safe to be rational in America?

I'm hitting the road to see the Butthole Surfers tonight. Blue moon, Holloween, the Butthole Surfers, Knitting Factory LA -- seems like some kind of harmonic convergence.

Steve, if you want to reach me, my cell is the best choice. 408 892 0826

So, is this like the "credible threat" against airforce one, or is this the other kind? Why can't they just say what it is? I guess because it's something like "Mossad says so."

Anyway, I'm moving the /treehouse to highest alert. So you know what to do. Or not.

And what's up with this? Mushroom clouds north of Kabul? Not good. I've been saying it privately but I'll go on the record here - we are going to drop some nuclear weapons on someone, real soon. Here's the formula:

"Experts" and various other talking head types - including many politicians - sense a chance to gain some points in the American public's mind by hitting Bush for being too timid. McCain, to take one example, is strongly calling for ground troops to take and hold land in Afghanistan. Thomas Freidman is calling for similar action (what's up with this guy - he's starting to scare me.) In any case, Bush is going to be forced to do something to seem strong, but as soon as we send ground troops into Afghanistan they will immediately and soundly get their asses kicked. We have the technology, but I'm guessing that doesn't mean much in the chaos of battle. Being accustomed to battle conditions is the only thing that matters, and these people are clearly accustomed. The US military would have to take 10 years of strong defeats before we'd be toughened up enough to really duke it out with a nothing-to-lose islamic fundamentalist army with decades of experience fighting on their home soil.

So, after we lose a couple Somalia style battles (with our soldiers being tortured, gutted, beheaded, and otherwised dragged through the streets of Kabul) our people, goaded by the McCain types, will demand blood. They will demand a victory that our conventional forces will be unable to deliver. So Bush will have no choice but to use nuclear weapons. Even if it's clear tactically that they won't do much good. They will appease the psychic need for a big hit.

(And two days later the Russians will drop one on Chechnya.)

Hope I'm wrong.