Yes, There IS an East-Coast Bias:

I have never been a big believer in the "east-coast" bias thing, because I've always been able to see some things that looked suspiciously like facts to me to negate such conspiracy-esque thinking. For one thing, the NBA has been dominated by a western, if not west-coast bias since Jordan retired again and it was clear that without Chicago, the West was by far the dominant conference; despite the Pistons, Celtics and Heat each winning titles in the interim, nothing has changed, since the Lakers and Spurs have each won as many as the Eastern Conference over the last decade.

The NHL has been all over the place, with a heavy focus on the east, sure, but the geographic distribution of the teams necessitates that, somewhat. As far as the MLB goes, the dominant teams over the last fifteen or so years have all been on the east coast, with a couple of exceptions (Arizona and Anaheim spring to mind, but contrast that with the Braves [who always collapsed, but were nevertheless dominant], Yank-mees, Red Sox, etc.).

In the NFL, Belicheat and the Patriots built a dynasty, however fraudulently, were knocked off one rung below the highest possible pedestal by the Jints, the Steelers have won a couple of Super Bowls along the way -- oh, and the last time a west-coast team made it all the way to the Super Bowl, they were cuh-RUSHED by an east-coast team (I won't dignify that disaster by referring to the game or the teams by name, but who doesn't know I'm talking about Tampa absolutely throttling Oakland in XXXVII?).

Now . . .

NOW . . .

There's not even a doubt anymore. I'd defended the NFL against east-coast bias previously, in part my noting that only eight of the 32 teams in the league are west of the Mississippi -- eight teams thus represent, what, 2/3 of the country, geographically speaking? (I count neither Minnesota nor New Orleans nor Saint Louis as part of that eight.)

However -- there's a bias, it's open, and it stinks. Read on (from ESPN.com):

NFL owners voted Monday to modify the schedule to ease the burden of cross-country road trips.

Last year, the Patriots and the Jets had to make West Coast trips to play AFC West opponents and NFC West teams. The Patriots chose to remain on the West Coast twice last season -- for back-to-back games against San Francisco and San Diego in October and Seattle and Oakland in December -- to minimize the wear-and-tear the schedule presented.

The Jets, meanwhile, played at San Diego and then had to travel to Oakland three weeks later. In December, New York visited San Francisco, returned home to play Buffalo, then went back to the coast to play Seattle. The Jets were upset by the Raiders as part of a late-season swoon that prevented them from making the playoffs.

Under the new plan, teams wouldn't have to visit two West Coast teams, just one, along with a team closer to the Midwest. Specifically, Oakland will be paired with Denver, and San Diego will be paired with Denver. In the NFC, Arizona and San Francisco will be paired as will St. Louis and Seattle.

Since 2002 when the league expanded to eight four-team divisions, the NFL has used a rotating formula in which a team plays four opponents within its conference once every three years and four teams in the other conference every four years.

Teams that have road games against Denver and Oakland will get home games against Kansas City and San Diego. The opposite scenario will also be true. The same format of home-and-away games with the paired cities holds true for the NFC as well.

The proposal was submitted by the broadcast committee for the purpose of creating a better balance for travel to the West Coast. Currently, the AFC South and the NFC West are scheduled to play the AFC West in 2010, which is when the new plan would be starting.

There it is, in living color, so to speak. You want bias? The NFL is bitching -- and changing the rules -- on behalf of the Patriots and the Jets. Woe is me, two west-coast trips in consecutive weeks! Four west-coast trips all season!

Never mind that going west is easier than going east (and I say this as an east-coast native who's done a hell of a lot of flying, particularly since moving overseas twice). Never mind that teams flying west start games three hours later than their body clock tells them they should, rather than three hours earlier. (Next time you cross time zones going east, go for a run or do your full workout routine at the same time you ordinarily do -- if it's 10 am PST when you work out, work out at 10 am EST, see if you notice a difference).

Never mind the fact that the Oakland Raiders made not one, not two, but FOUR trips to the east coast last season. Four. Never mind that the San Diego Chargers made not one, not two, but FOUR trips to the east coast last season. Four. Oh, and there was that game in London, to boot -- the Chargers spent a third of their season an average of four time zones ahead of where they spend most of their time.

Where's the pity party for the west-coast teams? Where are the favorable rule changes dictating limits to the extent of the time zones they have to cross and how often? Not there, because the money -- in terms of the bulk of the franchises are in the east or central time zones (26 ot of 32) and because the NFL and the networks are headquartered in NYC, ESPN in Connecticut, and so on.

The rule change will stand regardless of fan ire -- which is running hot and heavy at virtually any west-coast team blog and message board around, as well as the comments section on every major publication running this story.

So be it -- that's the way the game is going to be played. Let's just call it for what it is: a bush-league rule change designed to benefit the league's "prestige" franchises, like the Patriots. If they had wanted to be fair, they'd have made a concurrent change mandating that while eastern teams only have to travel west ONCE per season, western teams going east get either a prime-time or 4 pm local kickoff. Since that's not what happened, it's not hard to read between the lines: This is the moral equivalent of watering down the field before the game and stealing the visiting teams long spikes, leaving them with short cleats on slick grass.

Oh, but don't be surprised when the western teams spend as much of their political capital as they can amongst their fellow owners when the discussion comes next about changing playoff seeding. Were I a western owner, seeing my team placed at a permanent disadvantage by the networks (for scheduling purposes, of course), I'd work like hell against any rule change stating that records alone, and not division titles, determine playoff seeding. If I have to play, say, four east-coast games a season and win my division at 10-6, I'll be damned if I see my 3 or 4 seed given to an east-coast team who, at 11-5, made only one cross-country trip.

Oakland Raiders Offensive Line Shuffles:

Looks like the Raiders have a new center -- Samson Satele. The trade sends Satele to Oakland, a sixth-round pick to Miami, and the Raiders and Dolphins will swap picks in an as-yet undisclosed round.

This, just a few weeks after Oakland center Jake Grove signed a fat contract with . . . the Dolphins. Go figure.

It's an interesting trade, for a couple of reasons. First, the recent draft buzz -- to which I was close to falling victim -- was that the Raiders were leaning heavily toward Alex Mack, Cal's standout center. This trade would apparently take that off the board, unless the Raiders want to load up at C (essentially taking one in the first and one in the sixth) and let competition sort it out. Satele, it should be noted, has also played guard and tackle, and could conceivably be moved to RG if the Raiders WERE to take Mack (which would bring the total of upgraded line spots to 3 were that the case). The knock on Satele is that he's a bit soft against the NT-heavy 3-4, which makes him a liability in the AFC East. The problem is that I wonder whether he'll be able to shed that reputation against two nasty NTs in the West -- Jamaal Williams and Glenn Dorsey, one of whom Satele can reasonably expect to see once every four games. With the Broncos transitioning to a 3-4, if they nail down a top-notch NT, via FA, trade or the draft (what if Raji drops to 12?), that gives Satele six games against NTs -- power rushers of the type with which he has problems. It's certainly an upgrade from not having anyone there, and I'm willing to bet it's an upgrade over the departed Grove -- but I wonder whether it makes sense to trade for Satele with Mack a distinct possibility at 7 (or lower, should a trade down work out).

In other, positionally related news, hopefully no-longer-starting right tackle Cornell Green has been charged with domestic violence.

It's a no-nonsense league now, and even the Raiders shouldn't consider themselves exempt -- it's time to shed Green like unwanted holiday pounds. At best, he's a backup, and a fairly mediocre backup at that; the fact that he's been the starting tackle for the best part of two seasons is a glaring sign of the overall paucity of line talent in Oakland.

Now, however, the Raiders have three adequate-to-good tackles, each of whom is a full step ahead of Green: Mario Henderson, Khalif Barnes, and Erik Pears. Pencil in two to start and one to backup, and they're still thin at the position. With C seemingly off the board @ 7, the Raiders could pull the trigger on Crabtree or Maclin (and given an imperative to choose between the two, please let it be the former), or could do the other smart thing and hit defense @ 7 (Orapko would be a great pick there). If by some miracle Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe drop to 7, that should be a no-brainer, as should passing over Andre Smith when he's still on the board @ 7.

The reason this comes up is that, barring a trade, the Raiders could be looking at tackles again @ 40 -- and there are two that should still be on the board that look like they could be both decent players with some coaching and a good fit for Cable's ZBS: Connecticut's William Beatty and South Carolina's Jamon Meredith (again listed in order of preference).

Great teams are built from the inside out, and while the Raiders have a plethora of holes and only a few legitimate chances to fill them at any one time, the lines have to be the first priority. Raji @ 7 and Beatty @ 40, with a WR in the 3rd? I've heard worse ideas (in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not entirely thrilled with Raji -- but the idea of Raji as NT and Kelly as UT in the Raiders' 4-3 does speak of possibilities at both the first and second levels, thereby alleviating pressure on the secondary in the suddenly pass-happy West).

Granted, I'm still in favor of either Monroe or a trade -- ideally with Philly -- but Raji, Beatty and, oh, say, Derrick Williams/Johnny Knox/Juaquin Iglesias @ 71? (Though I suspect that the Raiders may be picking at 87, rather than 71). Can't leave Michael Oher out of the conversation entirely -- he may well be there for the taking @ 7, which would turn the conversation to Derrius Hayward-Bey or Hakeem Nicks @ 40.

Good times ahead in late April.

Oof -- Bad Day Two:

In my previous post, I mentioned whipping the President's ass with my NCAA bracket.

Spoke too soon. Whereas I was 14-2 on the first day, losing no second-round or later games, I was a meager 10-6 yesterday -- but at a cost of an Elite Eight AND Final Four team.

Depending on how today and tomorrow go, I can safely continue my ignominious streak of having my bracket utterly shot to hell and mathematically eliminated from any pools by the end of the first weekend of the torunament.

(Damnit.)

Whippin' President Obama's Ass:

According to ESPN, President Obama went 11-5 in the first day's games.

Me? I went 14-2, thus whipping the President's ass.

Hey, I have to enjoy it while it lasts, since my brackets are usually toast by the end of the first weekend.

New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty:

Governor Bill Richardson signed a bill last night abolishing capital punishment in New Mexico, bringing the total of abolitionist jurisdictions to 16 (15 states plus DC).

Richardson's official press release can be found here, but I've also copied it below -- it's well worth reading in its entirety.

Richardson is right to be concerned about the possibility of executing an innocent, and he is right to discard the question of deterrence. I wish he hadn't equivocated on that score, because it does legitimize an indemonstrable premise, and I wish he had been more selective with how he chose to word the bit about law enforcement, which consistently de-prioritizes the death penalty as a law-enforcement tool. The statement is a bit wishy-washy, and goes a decent way toward legitimizing the death penalty rather than rebuking it, but any way it's phrased, the signed bill makes NM an abolitionist state going forward.

Congratulations to the churches and grassroots groups in New Mexico, who have been working toward this for better than a decade.

Richardson's statement:

Governor Bill Richardson Signs Repeal of the Death Penalty

March 18, 2009
Gilbert Gallegos 505.476.2217

SANTA FE – Governor Bill Richardson today signed House Bill 285, Repeal of the Death Penalty. The Governor’s remarks follow:

Today marks the end of a long, personal journey for me and the issue of the death penalty.

Throughout my adult life, I have been a firm believer in the death penalty as a just punishment – in very rare instances, and only for the most heinous crimes. I still believe that.

But six years ago, when I took office as Governor of the State of New Mexico, I started to challenge my own thinking on the death penalty.

The issue became more real to me because I knew the day would come when one of two things might happen: I would either have to take action on legislation to repeal the death penalty, or more daunting, I might have to sign someone’s death warrant.

I’ll be honest. The prospect of either decision was extremely troubling. But I was elected by the people of New Mexico to make just this type of decision.

So, like many of the supporters who took the time to meet with me this week, I have believed the death penalty can serve as a deterrent to some who might consider murdering a law enforcement officer, a corrections officer, a witness to a crime or kidnapping and murdering a child. However, people continue to commit terrible crimes even in the face of the death penalty and responsible people on both sides of the debate disagree – strongly – on this issue.

But what we cannot disagree on is the finality of this ultimate punishment. Once a conclusive decision has been made and executed, it cannot be reversed. And it is in consideration of this, that I have made my decision.

I have decided to sign legislation that repeals the death penalty in the state of New Mexico.

Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime. If the State is going to undertake this awesome responsibility, the system to impose this ultimate penalty must be perfect and can never be wrong.

But the reality is the system is not perfect – far from it. The system is inherently defective. DNA testing has proven that. Innocent people have been put on death row all across the country.

Even with advances in DNA and other forensic evidence technologies, we can’t be 100-percent sure that only the truly guilty are convicted of capital crimes. Evidence, including DNA evidence, can be manipulated. Prosecutors can still abuse their powers. We cannot ensure competent defense counsel for all defendants. The sad truth is the wrong person can still be convicted in this day and age, and in cases where that conviction carries with it the ultimate sanction, we must have ultimate confidence – I would say certitude – that the system is without flaw or prejudice. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably not the case.

And it bothers me greatly that minorities are overrepresented in the prison population and on death row.

I have to say that all of the law enforcement officers, and especially the parents and spouses of murder victims, made compelling arguments to keep the death penalty. I respect their opinions and have taken their experiences to heart -- which is why I struggled – even today – before making my final decision.

Yes, the death penalty is a tool for law enforcement. But it’s not the only tool. For some would-be criminals, the death penalty may be a deterrent. But it’s not, and never will be, for many, many others.

While today’s focus will be on the repeal of the death penalty, I want to make clear that this bill I’m signing actually makes New Mexico safer. With my signature, we now have the option of sentencing the worst criminals to life in prison without the possibility of parole. They will never get out of prison.

Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe.

The bill I am signing today, which was courageously carried for so many years by Representative Gail Chasey, replaces the death penalty with true life without the possibility of parole – a sentence that ensures violent criminals are locked away from society forever, yet can be undone if an innocent person is wrongfully convicted. More than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years in this country, including four New Mexicans – a fact I cannot ignore.

From an international human rights perspective, there is no reason the United States should be behind the rest of the world on this issue. Many of the countries that continue to support and use the death penalty are also the most repressive nations in the world. That’s not something to be proud of.

In a society which values individual life and liberty above all else, where justice and not vengeance is the singular guiding principle of our system of criminal law, the potential for wrongful conviction and, God forbid, execution of an innocent person stands as anathema to our very sensibilities as human beings. That is why I’m signing this bill into law.

Heroic Pope Palpatine on Condoms: They Help Spread AIDS:

Unbelievable.

At what point is the pontiff complicit in these deaths?

As far as what he actually said, that "the distribution of condoms ... aggravates the problems" associated with HIV/AIDS, I could only think of Deuteronomy 19. The context isn't an exact fit, because the relevant verses (18ff.) deal with disputes taken to a court of law, but the point remains the same: in the biblical tradition, the bearer of false witness is subject to precisely the same punishment for which the accused originally stood. If you stood to pay, say, a 20 sheckel fine, but were falsely accused and the witness against you lied, then the witness was to pay the 20 sheckel fine instead.

Benedikt is certainly bearing false witness. It cannot be said that condom usage aggravates the HIV/AIDS problem. He is thus lying in the face of the slow death of millions -- bearing false witness. I wish someone with his ear would remind him of that, before he and his office work against common sense and common decency.

Some Days, I Just Love the News:

This one came courtesy of Harper, and really shouldn't be funny, but ...

Seems that over here in Germany, some food company thought that this would be a good idea:



According to Der Spiegel, the company was simply trying to cash in on Obama's name and pay an homage to the American way of eating, which is very trendy at the moment. There were, of course, no racist intentions -- indeed, Zee Churmans claim not to have known that sterotype. No word on when the Biden Burgers and Hillary Horseradish sauce will hit the shelves, but can they be far behind?

Somewhat belying this claim of ignorance, however, is the clever little comment that Americans are "more relaxed." It could be that our big butts require relaxed fit jeans from gorging on all of that fried chicken, but it seems to me more likely that some other butts were seeking ample coverage at that particular moment.

(The reason this is funny, of course, is how stupid it makes the producers of the product. It's unintentionally edgy humor, I guess, in that it works against itself.)

Speaking of burgers, and thus of beef, and thus of corn, and thus of Iowa, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley made a bit of news himself when he suggested that those wacky execs over at AIG should, you know, off themselves:

In a radio interview Monday, the Iowa Republican called on AIG executives to follow the Japanese approach toward accepting responsibility for the near collapse of the insurance giant, which has already cost taxpayers more than $170 billion in federal aid.

"I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, 'I'm sorry,' and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide," Grassley said.

Were I an Iowa voter, I'd think about tossing him a vote next time around, just for bringing the lulz.