My congrats to the Lady Vols, well deserving of their championship. During the past week I watched a couple of interviews with Ms. Parker & Coach Summit (and read some articles) & I was impressed with the way they embraced their position in college basketball & didn't run from the huge expectations their fans have for the program.

Before last night, UT women were in same boat as UK men (last championship in 98). As an alumni & follower of the UK program, I never heard in the last few years from Coach Smith or the players that 'it's been too long since UK won a National Championship' or words to that effect. I certainly heard that from Ms. Parker & Coach Summit.

Now I know it's harder to win one now in the men's game than in the women's (more parity & more athletes spread out over many more schools) but believe me, UK fans have the same expectations for our pgm as the UT fans have for their women's program & it would have been nice to hear our (now former) coach & players embrace those lofty goals instead of running from them.

The other day I met a gentleman from Lexington who is a personal friend of Coach Smith & lamented the expectations placed on him & said something to effect of 'Tubby should have been judged on the job he did turning out fine young men & mentoring them to make productive citizens' (something I think he did a fine job of). I responded that the university was not paying him $2 million a year to do that, that we were paying him to produce a team that in more years than not can contend for a final 4 berth (and every so often get to one, Coach Smith got to one & won it. He probably would have got one more if Keith Bogans hadn't busted up an ankle before we played Marquette in 03).

As for Ms. Parker returning to UT, good for her. I am sure though that if she was guaranteed the money the NBA #1 gets, she'd be outa there (and I think Coach Summit would be telling her to go).

Wes being misinformed: '1.) Bogans played and scored about his average.'

Wes, if I remember correctly (and I usually do), Bogans scored 4 points & only played about half his normal minutes. A healthy Bogans would have meant some defense on Mr. Wade (Keith right now is in the NBA due to his defensive skills). I'm not saying we would have wiped the floor with them, but we had the better team (with a healthy Bogans).

Any comment on the jist of my post: expectations & embracing them?

Wes, I was wrong about how many points Mr. Bogans scored in the Marquette game. You were certainly right about that & I apologize for characterizing you in this instance as 'misinformed'.

I still think a healthy K. Bogans could have been the difference in the game. Although, as you pointed out, Mr. Wade wasn't our only problem that game.

I too thought the panels with the duck were the funniest 'Super Fun Pak' comic I've yet seen.

I wanted to mention this, becuase I usually don't like his 'Super Fun Pak' stuff (FWIW).

what Moon Unit & Dweezil think about this?

Glenn, I hope sometime you will be able to delve deeper into why our elite opinion makers have not only gone about 180 degrees in their zeal to 'speak truth to power' (and print it) since the days of Pres. Clinton, but also how they willfully ignore documented evidence that (back in Pres. Clinton's tenure) would have had them howling in outrage over the perfidy of the Executive Branch.

One of my theories, and I don't know how far you can go with this, is that (using Fred Hiatt for an example) these people are very well paid (most of them millionaires) and they have seen (either by adding figures up themselves, or from their accountants, or maybe a nice powerpoint presentation by Karl Rove) that there is a big difference in how they are taxed by Repubs versus how they are taxed by Democrats. This difference amounts to a 'significant amount of money' in their eyes. Normal people don't see as much of a difference, due to us not making the kind of cake these people do, so we would be inclined to dismiss such a theory.

Someone in another thread posted a quote by Upton Sinclair or someone like that that went 'It's hard to make someone understand something when their paycheck depends upon them not understanding it'. Could it be as mundane as 'I keep $120,000 more of income under Repubs that I wouldn't keep under Democrats'?

I don't know if this would rise to the 'banality of evil' Ms Arendt wrote about, but it would be pretty sad that someone would try to keep these jokers in power just because they get to be a little richer when the GOP runs the show.

Annieatty asked: 'One poster said the US economy depends on war. How then to explain the strong economy during the Clinton years? Did any of his uses of the military qualify as "wars"? Kosovo?'

I think Mr. Kamiya engaged in a bit of shorthand when he said the 'US economy'. I think the correct formulation would be 'US Defense Industry and its owners'.