"Emphasis mine. The part after the boldface means that Jordan was farther above average for his position than Rodman was for his. Rodman was a PF, Jordan a SF, and PF are, on average, more productive."

A typo? Wasn't Jordan a SG not an SF? Pippen was the SF.

"The "Wages of Wins" authors argue that rebounds are undervalued. I'm not sure, but I don't think I agree. But in trying to fix that, they vastly overvalue rebounds and undervalue participation in the offense. Voila, Rodman becomes more valuable than Jordan, who is marked down for all those shots he missed, which he missed while being double-teamed (by Rodman's defender) in a 4-on-5 offense in which Rodman refused to participate."

Refused to participate? Rodman was a great offensive rebounder, good passer who had great hands. Although he wasn't much of a scorer at all, he knew what to do on that end of the floor to help his team (e.g. set picks, rebound, pass, and most importantly, keep the flow in thr triangle offensive) Compare him to Ben Wallace and the difference is stark. Wallace is totally lost on the offensive end and as this past playoffs proved hurt the Pistons on that end of the floor.

"Now any "al-Qaeda" activity is going to be small-to-medium sized cell action taken up by fervent jihadists acting on their own initiative...like the ones captured in Britain this week."

That's exactly the point you're missing. While we may have neutralized al-Qaeda in a larger sense, those small to medium sized "fervert jihadists" cells, took up the call. They don't need a large organizational structure and if they stay away from overly complicated plans, like the London train bombers did, they can be very dangerous.

"I was especially infuriated when Mr. Suskind opined that al-Qaeda somehow came up with this plot just since the beginning of the war between Israel and Hezbollah, as some kind of jihadist competition. What nonsense. It took Atta and Co. five years to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks - and that was with their command and support structure entirely intact - and it doubtless took these new plotters about that long as well."

I agree that Suskind's theory is specious but the notion that these latest guys were plotting "about as long" as Atta and Co. (5 years) is somewhat dubious as well. It hasn't even been 5 years since 9/11 yet. Unless you have some other information, I don't think that makes sense. Also, I think 9/11 was the culmination of several previous attacks on US interests around the world so it's not a surprise it took quite some time to plan.

Wow. You managed to twist the meaning of the article, get all the tired propaganda points and pull the anti-semitism card in a couple of short sentences. It usually takes you folks several long-winded paragraphs and/or letters to do that nonsense. Congrats.

...are at it again. I'm willing to bet there will be more stupidly bigotted attacks on Arabs and/or Muslims rather than anything about the subject of the article. So far, I'm right.

Indeed. Don't you know it's all about about us? :-)

Ah yes, the weight of "whataboutery". What about the American Indians? What about Rawanda? What about the plight of women in Iran? After all, you can't criticize Israeli actions in Lebanon without also criticizing those other issues equally and at the the same time or else you're under the spell of the "weight of tradition" (btw, nice way to play the ant-semitism card). But you are right in one way, it is a childish diversion and bs propaganda. Of course it goes without saying that you can simply ignore, or repeat ad nauseum, the outrageous anti-Arab and/or Muslim bigotry expressed here. Looks like my earlier prediction about this letters section was right.

Your point wasn't "carefully made" or of much substantive or even original at all. Although I do agree with you second paragraph, your third is questionable at best. It's sanctimonious hypocrisy to criticize Israeli actions in Lebanon without mentioning similar atrocities in American or Rwandan history? That's absurd.

"PS "I'm willing to bet there will be more stupidly bigotted attacks on Arabs and/or Muslims rather than anything about the subject of the article. So far, I'm right." As a clairvoyant, K, your track record is spotty. It seems that Gellhorn's culbability as a bad mother and a Jewess was a rather more popular topic."

Perhaps you should read what you quoted more carefully, comments about the subject of the article, whether you agree with them or not, are on point. But, the anti-Arab and Muslim bigotry posts are still in the lead.

Btw, I see you noticed what you called the "strain" of anti-semtism here but have ignored the rather blatant anti-Arab and Muslim bogotry that's rampant here. Interesting choice...

"What I was bothered by was the assumption that in backing Israel politically instead of the Arab nations, that Gellhorn had done a bad thing."

Classic. Who, other than you, made that assumption? The "bad thing" that some are talking about was Gellhorn's apparent bigotry against Arabs. Nice try though. The rest of your letter is the usual propaganda verbiage. Oh, you might want to update that stuff. For example, the "only democracy" line. I could have sworn that a country just north of Israel...now, what's the name of it?...I got it...LEBANON...recently held democratic elections. Must have been my imagination.

"If you dont believe this inconvenient truth check your reality sensors for the last time a Western (read: non muslim) terrorist group beheaded someone on live TV."

Well, I guess blowing up babies in Oklahoma City doesn't count since they weren't beheaded on television.