Raiders-Seahawks Preseason Week 4

Well, last season, the fifth preseason game, at Seattle, demonstrated clearly that the Raiders were going to be a bad team last season. If this game is equally demonstrative, the Raiders will be a mediocre team.

Frankly, this game was boring, but what do you expect when Hasselbeck, Alexander, Curry, Porter, Sapp, Burgess, etc., all sit all or virtually all of the game? Notes on the game, limited to one per section:

Some things that I liked in this game:

• Daunte Culpepper.

This should cement the starting job, and he looked good, but he was also playing against the seconds and thirds -- and cuts. It's hard to gauge where he is -- given the lowered level of competition, he was also playing with seconds, thirds and cuts. He finally threw an intereception, which always raises fears of the One Man Turnover Machine returning to the field. We'll see what happens.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• Johnnie Lee Higgins.
  Nice return for the second week in a row, an 90-yard punt return to give the Raiders a 7-0 first-quarter lead. This time, no flags – the return stood. Nice acrobatic TD celebration, to boot.
  
  However -- nice hands, Drops McCoy.

Things I Didn't Like:

• Depth.
  Good teams have depth. Bad teams do not. The Raiders, frankly, are hoping that no one gets hurt. Even Al sees that: ``We've got a chance to show something, but I worry about injuries,'' Davis said. Talented, deep teams worry less about injuries than talent-thin teams. Seattle's backups are better than the Raiders' backups -- this should be obvious, given that Seattle is simply a better team than Oakland this season.
  
  However, no Sapp and no Burgess meant no sacks -- no one else was sprung free with those two guys off the line. And that against a #2 and #3 OL. Is there any better indication that the real strength of the team -- its defense -- is only as strong as its front-line men?

I'll predict a couple of cuts: OJ Santiago, Justin Fargas, Alvis Whitted, Eric Frampton, Gerard Warren, Kurt Campbell, and Zack Crockett. Crockett is probably going to lose out to Oren O'Neal and Justin Griffith. It'll be weird to see the Raiders without him, since he's been there for years, but those are a couple of cut picks. We'll see by Saturday who the final 20+ cuts are.

Also, some (presumably unintentional) comedy right here. Where to begin discussing this atrocity? Nowhere, really -- the problems are manifest and apparent as soon as you look at it.

PS, the Pats DID win back-to-back Super Bowls, despite doublerey's claims to the contrary.

The Albemarle County (VA) GOP's Platform:

Courtesy of Waldo Jaquith: this is what the Albemarle County (VA) Republican Party believes.

Too funny.

Trying to Make a Run?

So the Dodgers have signed Esteban Loaiza to shore up a pitching staff that at full strength could be deadly, but is very hurt (Jason Schmidt, Hong Chi Kuo, Randy Wolf) or thoroughly inept (Brett Tomko, Mark Hendrickson).

First The Boomer, now Loaiza. An interesting pair of additions. May be too little too late, though -- the Dodgers are on a modest little roll after going totally MIA for three weeks (4-15 over that span), but they've got three at San Diego, the team that absolutely owns them.

Here's hoping.

Vernor Vinge: The Peace War

This is the second Vinge novel I've read, the first being the absolutely stunning A Fire Upon the Deep. The Peace War is not in the league of Fire, but that's far from a knock against it. It reads as well -- as deeply and as quickly -- as any sci-fi I've read, and the story is a nice mix of utopia, dystopia, hard sci-fi and a darn good story for good measure. The characterization and plot pacing were reminiscent of Heinlein at his best (or most casual, which may have been the same thing at times), the story had just enough hard science to be implausibly plausible, and the resolution flowed well from the buildup.

In fact, the only knock I have against this book is the very last chapter -- it seemed like Vinge didn't quite know how to end the story, so it just ... stopped, but made a pretense of wrapping up. It makes for a clumsy last couple of pages, but far too minor a nuisance to make a difference.

Thoroughly enjoyable read, worth it for any fan of sci-fi, utopia/dystopia or post-apocalyptic novels. This is better than many of them, if not most of them, and as much fun as the best of them.

Looking forward to cracking the sequel, Marooned in Realtime.

Who Does Lane Kiffin Think He's Fooling?

Has it ever been a mystery that once they signed Daunte, he was intended ultimately to win the starting job? I believe Kiffin when he says that he wants the QBs to compete and establish the best of the lot among themselves by their performance, but there's very little doubt, listening to Kiffin during press calls or other interviews, that he's stringing the competition process along. That may be a function of the inability of Andrew Walter and Josh McCown to win the job outright, but it seems as if Kif is stringing it out to give Daunte a better chance to win it.

Either way, after assuming since April that McCown would be the opening-day starter, it's starting to look a little closer to 50-50. In a way, this may be good, since it wouldn't involve the instability of a qb switch at an inopportune moment.

The question is whether the "Oakland to trade a QB to Atlanta" rumors have any truth to them.

Another Bad Guy Cuts and Runs:

Seems that Alberto Gonzalez has finally resigned.

I can't say I'll shed a tear over this one. This man was mendacious at best, an outright liar at worst.

Maybe the next AG (and the next President*) will have the requisite combination of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, sufficient honesty and integrity to stand up to the President and tell him/her when they're going beyond the scope of their powers, and the humility to accept the limitations placed on both their own authority as Attorney General and the limitations placed on the federal government at large.

Gonzales had none. He will not be missed.

(*Given the field running across the board, this seems mostly a forlorn hope at this point, but we'll see how it pans out.)

Raiders-Rams, Preseason Week 3:

People talk about the Week 3 preseason games as really the only ones that "matter." That's not the case here, given Stephen Jackson's all-but night off, but it was still an interesting game.

Some things that I liked in this game:

• The First Drive Each Way.
  I actually liked the Rams' first drive -- the Raiders got burned for a very nice big play, but then turned around and shut the Rams down over the next three plays, forcing a punt.
  
  On the other side, this was the first time the Raiders grabbed a couple of first downs on their opening drive. The other two opening drives were anemic, bumbling affairs -- not quite the Keystone Cops Offense that they were running last year, but the offensive machine was running far from smoothly. Yes, the Raiders benefited from a long PI, and yes, the drive did stall out, though Jano had a beautiful 50-yard field goal, but they came out of the gates and moved the ball well enough.
  
  Here's what I really like: the shine is off the OL apple, such as there was a shine in the first place. The Raiders first-string OL looked positively good in the first two games, but that was deceptive; for example, last week, none of the 49ers starting DL played.
  
  This week, against a starting DL for the first time, the Raiders firsters played adequately. Not well, not badly -- but maybe more 'honestly' than they had against lesser odds. The running game early was not as good as it had been; there were too many small-yard runs and negative runs. Culpepper was flushed out and had to move and react a couple of times, because the pocket was broken down. Clearly, the OL was a work in progress, and I like seeing that. First, and most importantly, it's a reminder to these biased eyes to not take what I see too seriously; this OL just isn't going to be dominant, and if it's even going to be good remains to be seen.
  
  At the same time, recognizing it as a work in progress is certainly ahead of last season. It seems to me safe to say that this OL will not give up 72 sacks, and the rushing YPA should be better, too. This is a good sign.(On the other hand, the firsters gave up two sacks today; not the best of things to see.)


• Zach Miller.
  Zach Miller. What a game – not much in the way of numbers, but Miller had a tremendous game blocking. This guy is for real, and is a multi-dimensional talent.


• Long Drives.
  Well, in the first half, at any rate. Good, long drives each time they had the ball -- the shortest drive was 48 yards.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• Daunte Culpepper.
  Face-read a few times, but good hands this time – no butterfingers! – and some excellent reactions on broken plays to turn busted plays into big gains or touchdowns. He may have sewn up the starting gig this weekend, but probably not just yet – he was just under the threshold to put himself clearly over the top, I think, and McCown was just good enough to justify the competition one more week. Clearly, though Andrew Walter is out of the running, and destined either for third string, the practice squad, or a trade (to Atlanta? That’s one rumor that I find interesting.)


• Swinging for the Fences.
  Going for broke often this time. This seems to me a bit of overreach, frankly. This is not an offense that has the ability to be a quick-strike offense, and they’re trying to get the home run into the play book. If it works, beautiful, but this offense needs to be rhythmic, efficient, and, unfortunately, a little bit safe in order to give the team a good shot to win. I love the big-play, I love the audacity – I’m not sure I’ll love the results if they get too hung up on it.
  
  On the other hand, if they can rack up the PI’s like they did against Saint Louis, then going deep often is definitely an option. The Rams were positively Raider-like with their penalties, going 10-157, against the Raiders going 8-60. Appropos penalties, the Raiders firsters went 2-10 in the first half – not a bad deal.

Things I Didn't Like:

• Michael Huff.
  Huff is supposed to be this season’s Asomugha – so far, there’s no sign of that whatsoever.


• Penalties, Turnovers, Sacks.
  8-60 was a lot better than Saint Louis, and the starters only committing two penalties was very nice, but they sure picked up the pace in the second half, including wiping out a punt-return touchdown. Raiderball has traditionally involved a lot of penalties, but flags are problems that this team simply isn’t good enough to overcome consistently. Neither are they good enough to consistently recover if they lose the turnover and sack battles, as they did this weekend, too. Overall, the Raiders were very poor in these categories.


• Squandered Opportunities.
  Were this a regular-season game, it’s hard to feel that the Raiders would have won it. They absolutely dominated the first quarter, in virtually all facets, but they came away from it with only three points. Certaily the ’06 Raiders would have lost this game; a patient Rams team would have beaten the ’06 Raiders in this game easily. It remains to be seen how the ’07 Raiders can do in such a situation, but it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to assume that the this year’s club will have to score when it has the opportunity; a dominant quarter (or half, or three quarters) that doesn’t result in a proportionate amount of scoring will lead to a loss this season. They just aren’t good enough to overcome missed opportunities. See also:


• Positively Squandering Chris Carr's 81-Yard Kickoff Return.


• 12 plays, 68 Yards, 6:31, 0 points, 1 red-zone turnover.
  The line on the Raiders' second offensive possession.


• Missing a 33-Yard Field Goal Attempt


• Drops.
  Receivers did not make the catches they should have, as a unit, with seemingly everyone having at least one bad drop, while defenders were not getting picks when they had their hands on the ball.

Overall, it may seem odd to have so many more negative points that positive or ambivalent points after a win, but this was just not a good game, and shows pretty clearly that the Raiders are going to have to work very hard -- and get more than their share of lucky breaks -- to even threaten .500 this season.

Intelligence Failures:

These two articles do a pretty good job of stating why I oppose "reasonable" extensions of governmental intelligence-gathering powers. The problems seem not to have been so much with the intelligence gathering as with intelligence utilization.

Incompetence and failure within the intelligence sectors are poor, poor excuses for the nasty turn in the direction of a police state we've seen over the last six years.

Poker last night --

Well, it wasn't my best night playing, but it wasn't my worst, either -- bought in at 10, cashed out at 7.90. Meh. So-so.

I never had a second buy-in, which is somewhat unusual; even when the game goes well for me, I tend to only get on a hot streak after I've bought in a second time.

I did have to go all in at one point, but that was no big deal, since I flopped an immortal -- I was happy to go as far in on that hand as I could, since it meant I'd get more out of it at the end!

Good times, crappy cards. I did better when I was more patient (shocking, I know). I was most often a hand ahead, and when I remembered that and tossed hands I knew looked good but weren't, I did pretty well -- I was up when I was patient, and way down when not. Playing "a hand ahead" meant that if I drew K-3 suited, the next hand, some combination of Kings, 3s or that suit would be the winner -- but not the hand on which I drew them. If I drew pocket 10s, then the third ten would appear on the flop the hand following. Very frustrating, especially since it happened regularly enough for me to notice and realize that there definitely was a pattern.

In fact, for almost three hours, the only hands I won were when I had holdover cards from the previous pocket; even 9-2 off was a winning draw for me if I had 9-2 off the previous pocket. The damndest thing.

RIP Max Roach:

A fantastic, fantastic musician has passed on. The NYT has a good write-up here.

Excuse me, I'm going to put on Rich v. Roach and enjoy.

Three Posts on Jose Padilla:

This initially was meant to be thoughts on the verdict, but wound up being so long I decided to break it into three parts -- I reversed the posting order, to take advantage of the time stamping on the page, so reading from the last (most recent) to the first (oldest) will put the whole original post back together.

____________________________________________________________

From Yahoo! News:

critics and law experts called Thursday's verdict a messy win for the government, in which it was able to avoid answering for its long detention and interrogation of Padilla without the legal rights normally granted U.S. citizens, and, his lawyers said, for torturing him.

Some said it showed that the administration still lacks a workable system for trying terrorism suspects nearly six years after the September 11 attacks.

"The verdict is important because it provides cover. It validates the government's tactics in a way that the jury may not have necessarily meant to," said American University law professor Stephen Vladeck.

This is a legitimate concern, I think. The inadvertent effect of this could be to give imprimatur to a procedure by which American citizens are held outside of the law and then tried for offenses different from those that they were initially confined:

In the court of public opinion, Padilla stands convicted. His name is almost synonymous with dirty bomber. Yet, when it came time to put Padilla on trial, the government's case in Miami included no mention of a dirty bomb.

Then there's the matter of whether or not he was competent to assist in his own defense, and whether or not he was made incompetent to do so:

Many mental health experts say his severe seclusion in a Navy brig impaired his thinking. A judge confirmed the disability but let the case continue, refusing to probe the government's hand in altering Padilla's ability to defend himself.

This is fundamentally unfair, and points toward an administration and a process trying to reach a foregone conclusion rather than to do justice in the case. Like it or not, every defendant deserves to present a defense -- or is this not longer a system based on presumed innocence?

Now, granting that it is difficult not to sound hyperbolic in these sorts of situations, I'd love for someone to explain to me where the bright-line distinction is between granting that someone is mentally incompetent to assist in their own defense -- while acknowledging the possibility that the treatment that person received in confinement may account for that incompetence -- and acknowledging that someone is mentally incompetent to make a valid confession, yet taking it at face value and entering it in the record anyway. What is the fundamental difference between those two situations?

More problems with Padilla's case:

As the CSM reminds in a different story, "He is a United States citizen, arrested on US soil, who was held in a military prison for 43 months and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques until he confessed." There's a line between legitimate interrogation and illegitimate interrogation techniques, and it's a matter of sound policy not to cross the line. Some people would look at that sentence and be furious at the idea of "people like him" having "rights." Tough. That's what our system is supposed to protect. Questions of human dignity and protection from the rule of law aside -- though not minimized, since they are or should be overriding concerns -- there is also the question of the protection of the rule of law. Illegitimate interrogation methods produce, or can produce, illegitimate confessions, with three broad possibilities following:

1. The illegitimate confession is thrown out. The case -- however legitimate it may otherwise be -- is then in danger and could be lost, because the rule of law wasn't respected enough to protect the case from the investigators.
2. The case could be won and overturned on appeal. Overturning may be the right thing to do, particularly if an illegitimately obtained conviction was the linchpin of the case, but while right, this could be a disastrous result; after all, there is ample evidence of the 'corrective' ability of legislation to work against such procedural and constitutional niceties as habeas corpus protections. See also: AEDPA, one of the worst laws currently in effect in the United States.
3. Nothing much at all. This is, to me, the worst potential result. American citizens moved outside of the protective (and yes, restrictive) confines of the law in order to be prosecuted -- not necessarily for the crime for which they were originally arrested -- in proceedings that involve limiting counsel's access to the defendant deliberately, that involve deliberately limiting the ability of the defendant to mount a defense, and then legitimating those limitations, and deciding the case in part on illegitimately obtained confessions, perhaps made by those insufficiently mentally competent to be culpable for those confessions.

Same question as above. What differentiates this procedure from a show trial?
Compounding the difficulty is the fact that the prosecution reportedly played fast and loose with the evidence:

The government recorded thousands of calls in which Hassoun and Jayyousi sometimes discussed "playing football" or "eating cheese" — code, prosecutors said, for assisting in violent jihad. But Padilla's voice was heard in only seven calls, and he was not accused of using code.

Prosecutors also played parts of a 1997 television interview with Osama bin Laden for the jury, in which he called for violent jihad against the United States. They then played wiretapped calls in which Hassoun and Jayyousi excitedly discussed the interview.

Because there is no evidence that Padilla saw or discussed the interview, Judge Cooke instructed jurors not to consider it evidence against him. But Swartz and Jeanne Baker, the lawyers for Hassoun, said they thought the video had been devastating for all three defendants. "This is definitely a post-9/11 prosecution where the government wanted to send a false message to the nation that we are safe," Baker said. "That's what sent the jury in the wrong direction."

I bolded what I think are the two biggest problems here. First, the other defendants were accused of speaking in "code" -- talking about "playing football" or "eating cheese" (phrases, incidentally, that I am reasonably certain have crossed my lips while on the phone, and I wasn't speaking in code at the time) -- but Padilla was not accused of that. Do we have a case of guilt by association? It's hard to dodge that idea.

Second, an instruction not to consider the videotape as evidence is nice, and satisfies legal requirements, but is meaningless; the videotape served its purpose. It should never have been admitted unless the prosecution was going to prove that Padilla had seen and approved of the video -- and, frankly, I'm not sure that would be enough to justify including it, either, because that runs the risk of trying a man for his thoughts, rather than his actions. The tape did exactly what it was meant to do: finish off the link in the jurors' minds between Padilla and Al Qaeda, thereby putting him on trial for whom he resembled, not for what he did.

Another problem with Padilla's case:

ANOTHER problem here is the fact that the government was so nakedly trying to do an end-run around the courts, for fear they would lose the case:

A few minutes later, Justice Antonin Scalia, an anchor on the court's conservative wing, said he found nothing in his research to support Bush's assertion of unchecked authority to wage the war on terror. "It doesn't say you can do whatever it takes to win the war," he said.

His comment raised a huge red flag for the administration. ....

Padilla's Supreme Court case was dismissed by a 5-to-4 vote on a technicality. The justices said Padilla's lawyers should have filed their suit in South Carolina rather than New York. Scalia provided the key fifth vote in a decision that effectively allowed the administration to continue to hold and question Padilla in the brig.

Padilla's lawyers filed a new suit in South Carolina and, by 2005, were again at the steps of the Supreme Court. But rather than allow an airing of the issue at a high court that many analysts believe to be sympathetic to Padilla, the administration transferred him from military custody into the criminal-justice system.

And there it is. Rather than have to potentially answer for their actions, they simply said "just kidding," and changed the field of play. That should be a red flag to anyone who actually believes in the rule of law -- it's not being respected by those with both the agenda and the means to enforce that agenda. Nothing new, maybe -- but always, always dangerous.

________________________________________________________

The verdict may have been correct, but it's tainted. Padilla may be guilty of what he was finally charged with -- but it's difficult to see, given the utter disregard for the process demonstrated by the government in pursuing the case. A black mark will probably be hung over this case for a long time to come -- and the black mark will be absolutely deserved.

By way of a final comment, check out Democracy Now on Padilla

Raiders-49ers Preseason Week 2

As much as I personally am into rivalries and the like, I'm not from the Bay Area, so when the Raiders play the Niners, any "rivalry" is mostly pretense -- I know that there is a rivalry there, but I don't care -- I'm much more interested in the Broncos, Chargers and Chiefs. Oh well.

Still, never fun losing a game, but this one was at least interesting. The most interesting thing about the game: the WIND -- all 27 first-half points were scored with the wind at the offenses' backs. ZERO points were scored into the wind. Ah, Candlestick Point. (For the game, 41 of the 47 points were scored with the wind.)

Now, some things that I liked in this weekend's game:

• Welcome Back, LaMont Jordan!
  A lost man last season; one of many, unfortunately, but he looked great last night. 9 carries for 67 yards, with a long of 38. Apart from the big one his average wasn't spectacular, but he had a couple of big short runs -- including short third-down conversions and a three-yard touchdown to the left that was a nice show of effort to bull in as he did. Add to that a 19-yard reception on a checkdown, and Jordan had 86 total yards and a touchdown in less than a half of work. Great stuff, and I'd love to see it continue for him.


• The Running Game in General.
  31 rushes for 133 yards -- 4.3 yards/carry. The Niners had a better average -- 4.8 -- but 4.3 is enough to sustain drives and keep some offensive momentum going. Good to see.
  
  I also liked the fullback play. It doesn't show well in the stats, but Justin Griffith had a couple of nice lead blocks, and Crockett had a huge 12-yard td reception in the second quarter. I'd like to see them keep both FBs into the season.
  
  I will say, though, that I won't be terribly heartbroken if Fargas doesn't make the final cut. Yes, he runs hard, but he's never shown anything. He had the speed to be the home-run threat that Jordan really isn't, but he's never been a home-run hitter because he can't make people miss. He's never done anything to get he on his side, and he's one of several (fairly) long-time Raiders I'd love to see get cut, traded or otherwise disposed off this preseason.


• Sacks.
  Last week this category was "Turnovers and Sacks," but the one didn't pan out as well this week. Still, the Raiders gave up only one sack, in the fourth quarter. The first- and second-team lines did a fantastic job of keeping the QBs upright, giving them time to make plays, and generally helping both Walter and Culpepper get into rhythm after some fairly mediocre starts. If the QBs can take a bit of confidence in the OL into the season, that could account for a couple of points here and there, as they may be calm enough to make a big play when they need to.


• Long Drives.
  All three touchdown drives were 70 yards or better. Good to see the Raiders able to move the ball down the field methodically, controlling clock as they do so.


• Vernon Davis.
  Hey, nothing says I can't include a Niner here. I thought that Davis had a very good game. So good that I wanted to include him on this list. Alex Smith could have been here, too -- he looked pretty good.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• Andrew Walter.
  Just a terrible start, and it didn't get better for a while. When it did get better for him, though, it was great: a 17-play, 77-yard touchdown drive that took almost nine minutes. He did an excellent job on that drive, and while he had some nice throws that didn't count -- especially Travis Taylor's terrible drop -- he also fumbled twice and tossed an interception on an awful throw that resulted in a Niners touchdown. (I have a feeling this guy is destined for the practice squad when Russell signs; I think that they may want to keep him around to back Russell up, assuming that either Culpepper or McCown -- or both -- leave after this season.)


• Daunte Culpepper.
  Culpepper is almost in the "Things I Liked" category this week, but he had a lot of trouble taking the snap cleanly. The fact that Walter had the same trouble should make me more charitable toward Daunte, but the fact that he fumbled his first snap in consecutive games lands him in the "Ambivalent" category. Still, he did an excellent job managing the game, ran two crisp, good-looking touchdown drives, both of which he capped with touchdown passes, saved some broken plays with some (gasp!) good decision-making, AND ripped off a nice scramble. It's a bit disconcerting to see him take off like that, but it's nice to see that he's becoming confident enough to do so. Bonus: he was smart enough to slide once he got the first down.

Things I Didn't Like:

• Penalties, Turnovers, Blown Coverages, Missed Tackles.
  A slightly different quadfecta from last week, primarily because the Raiders only gave up one sack in the game. The INT in the first half hurt, and the points there more than account for the margin of victory, but it's the fact that they were -1 in the give-take that makes this game a loss in that category. The Raiders protected the ball pretty well, yes, but they still wound up on the short side of that, because they couldn't create a takeaway to offset their giveaway.
  
  Lots of penalties -- far, far too many, including a few that were declined because the 9ers were content to keep the result of the play. Not a good sign. Is yet another Raider coach on the way to failing to fulfill his promise to cut down on penalties?


• The QB Situation. And Alvis Whitted.
  Good drives and bad plays. Meh. Each of the three QBs could really have been in the "Ambivalent" category this week, but McCown's rally fell short and the drives he led were insufficiently remarkable as to merit much.
  
  Now, Alvis Whitted.
  
  Alvis Whitted is another of those "long-time" Raiders I'd love to see off the final roster. He is very fast, yes, but that's all he has going for him. He doesn't concentrate well, he doesn't run good routes, he doesn't help any of the other receivers on the field by playing well enough to command any sort of defensive attention, and, oh yeah, HE DROPS PASSES. Like the potential game-winning touchdown pass.
  
  Whitted has always struck me as one of "Al's Guys" -- the fact that he's only on the roster for the sake of his speed, and due to no demonstrable play-making skill attests to this. I remember another of "Al's Guys" that was sort of a statement cut when a new coach came to town. Anyone else remember Jon Gruden cutting Joe Aska? Given that Will Buchanon had a huge drop last week and was cut on Thursday, maybe the same is in the works for Whitted? One can only hope.

Things are definitely looking up. The Raiders are not a playoff team by any stretch of the imagination, but if they can keep playing hard, if they can catch a couple of breaks, they may flirt with .500. Looking forward to next weekend!

I've Been Acknowledged:

I have, for the first time (that I am aware of), been formally acknowledged and thanked in a book.

Pretty cool.

Can I Still Prove My American Citizenship?

Mailed off my passport for renewal today. Consulate says 3 weeks for renewal, plus 1-2 for transit to and from the U.S.

Yeah bloody right. We'll see.

Got a pretty good compliment today --

I have to preface this with a short digression, however. I also have to preface it with an observation that should be obvious to anyone: Mario Kart 64 is simply the world's finest video game, ever. Ever. EVER.

After I graduated years ago, I moved into a house with one of my best friends and another friend. Now this guy is a monster Mario Kart 64 player -- just wicked good. And we played -- frequently. And I lost -- always. ALWAYS. It took me the best part of four months to even beat the guy, but by the time I moved out of the house, I could do so more often than he was happy with. He still held the overall edge, but it was competitive much more often than not. (Also, I'm the reigning four-way champion as far as that goes, and no one has yet taken that away from me!)

The game we played was simple: Battle Mode, Skyscraper. That's it. No racing, no other battle course -- those sorts of things were beneath us. Battle Mode, Skyscraper. First to five wins the prelim, and then it's in the bonus: the prelim winner needs to win one match before the prelim loser wins two. This post-prelim round is referred to as the Champion del Mundo round, and for the record, I first acquired the title of Champion del Mundo after losing that particular prelim 5-1. Granted, I only held the title for around 24 hours, but hey, at least I was smart enough not to put it on the line immediately.

At any rate, as badly as I did against my roommate, I got to the point that I could thoroughly demolish just about anyone else I played with -- as a smack-talking co-worker found out (and how, that was ugly), and, recently, I had the chance to lay the smack down again on another smack-talker over here. He talked a big game, but when it came down to it, I was the one doing the winner's dance. He got a couple from me, but I can write that off as the natural consequence of a guy who never owned the system (me) playing someone else who loves the game and claims to play it often. Still, I flashed the Grove Ave. "G" after I stomped a mudhole in him and walked it dry.

Today, when several of us were discussing our next poker night, he tells me that he's been practicing with his brother-in-law and is ready to take me on again.

I love it.

Practice away, man -- as Drago said in Rocky IV, "You will lose."

So, Can Mono Be Retroactive?

Apparently Oakland Raiders Head Coach Lane Kiffin has been suffering from mononucleosis. Weird. I had that once, when I was seven -- dunno how it was that I got it, but it coincided fairly nicely with the chicken pox, so I slept off the last bits of that one and kept right on sleeping.

Come to think of it, maybe they should just chalk up Oakland's '06 offense to mono.

Just sayin'.

... And Speaking of Football and My Beloved Raiders:

This season, I will not miss a game. I bought the Yahoo! NFL Game Pass yesterday, so I'm all set.

It'll be kind of sad not to hear Greg Papa and Tom Flores while I listen to radio broadcasts of the games, but now I can WATCH the games live -- or wait until Monday if they're too late -- and not have to watch the little animated play-by-play over at ESPN.com or NFL.com. Score!

The Game Pass was unveiled last season, and just in time for the Raiders-Bengals game (debacle). It was actually pretty cool, even though the Raiders -- surprising to absolutely no one -- got stomped by Cincy. One of the guys over here is a big Bengals fan, so we got the game and got together to watch it with some other friends -- very fun. I got to see two Nnamdi Asomugha picks in that game, one that was noice and one that was just spectacular, not to mention Fabian Washington getting a third swipe for good measure. (Fat lot of good the INTs did!)

Here's hoping that '07 is better than '06 -- or it'll hurt watching all of these games.

Workout Aug. 15

This week is the first time in close to a month that I'll be able to go through my full weekly routine in the gym, and three weeks since I've been able to do anything at all. That time off doesn't really result in any major changes -- I'm still as strong as I was before -- but it does mean that the first week back I'm just terrible. That first week I'm weaker and have a bit less endurance, and I just have to burn through the cycle once to get back into a rhythm. So it goes.

In that spirit, I did what would have been my normal vertical push/pull day -- which included a triset of static pullups (with knee raises to get some ab work in early), squats and standing military presses.

That was one rough, rough way to start a workout. Wound up adequately, even if I was totally blown earlier than I'd have liked. Then again, first week back in ... next week will be much better.

Raiders-Cardinals: Preseason Week 1

Last preseason, I got suckered by the four wins and though I saw the signs of trouble -- god-awful OL play and a complete inability for the first-team offense to move the ball with any consistency, it was easy to write that off to preseason ball -- learning new packages and plays, new formations, rotating in different combinations of players in order to get the perfect mix down in time for the regular season, that sort of thing.

The writing was on the wall, and even as biased a fan as I am could read it clearly, when the Seahawks absolutely thumped the Raiders in the final preseason game. It was, unfortunately, a sign of things to come.

There were, though, some things that I liked in this weekend's game:

• QB Play.
  Do what now? They weren't that good, man.
  I know that. They were not, however, bad -- and that's more the point right now. There were some dud plays, but the QBs moved the ball, sustained drives, and rallied when they lost the lead. All positive signs.
  Incidentally, I dig the fact that Walter looked the best of the three for the most part. Good for him.


• Turnovers and Sacks.
  Yes, this was big for me, but more for the projected first-team OL. No sacks surrendered. Granted, Arizona is far from a defensive juggernaut, or even from being an above-board defensive team, but still, a win is a win is a win, as they say, and 0 sacks allowed by that unit is 4.5 fewer than they allowed per game last season.
  
  The turnover battle was key, too. Coach Kiffin pointed out not long ago that if you ranked the NFL teams in order of worst turnover differential, the top four or five draft places fell into line automatically. Each side turned the ball over once, each side capitalized to the tune of seven points.
  
  The Raiders certainly aren't good enough yet to win games when they lose the turnover battle. They may be good enough to catch some breaks if they stay even or ahead.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• Zone Blocking.
  Come on, this is Broncos ball. Then again, the Broncos always have somewhere between an excellent and a superlative running game. But still -- it's cheap and it's dirty. Then again, this is the Raiders. Result: Push.


• Daunte Culpepper.
  Look, I want him to succeed. I really do, and have ever since Moss left the Cities. However, he was a good, solid "push" in this game. Made some excellent plays, showed at least a modicum of mobility, but also fumbled twice and displayed some terrible touch, including totally, totally overthrowing receivers and trying to put one through the chest of Johnnie Lee Higgins, when a bit of touch made it a more catchable ball. Still, he showed fairly well, and if he can build on this, he'll be the guy to knock McCown off the #1 spot.

Things I Didn't Like:

• Penalties, Sacks, Blown Coverages, Missed Tackles.
  You know, the usual quadfecta. I'm willing to be somewhat forgiving, though, given that it was all an improvement on last season.


• Points Allowed.
  Frankly, I think the scrub defense deserves a bit of credit for holding AZ to field goals on short fields. Still, for this team to even approach .500, the defense has to win games -- a la Baltimore and Chicago -- not just put the offense in a position to win them. Here's hoping ...



• The QB Situation.
  Boy, this is just complicated and ugly. Just plain ugly. Won't comment further until the Russell situation resolves itself somehow and until there is a sign of consistency of opinion as to who the #1 guy should be -- be it McCown, Culpepper or Walter. Until at least one of those two things are clarified, it makes no sense to even opine further.

Now, to see what happens against San Fran this weekend ...

Jeremy Green: Wasting Love?

I love Jeremy Green, because he always shows the RAAAADAHS some love.

However -- what?! Daunte Culpepper as The Answer?

Hey, I've been rooting for Daunte to do well after his messy divorce from Moss -- but the answer?!

Dunno about that. A couple of fumbles the other night -- including the first snap he took. Ok, his first action in a long, long time, and from a center he apparently doesn't work much with in practice. We'll write that off.

He finished the night 5-12. Not a terribly impressive completion percentage. Give him the benefit of the doubt on two of the three drops (the third was a touch mistake on his part -- too much mustard on a ball that didn't need it) and he's a respectable 7-12. Give him the benefit of the doubt on the third -- it did, after all, plunk off the receiver directly between the numbers -- and he's throwing at 66.7%.

Still -- The Answer? We'll see. I'd be lying if I said I didn't hope it worked, for him as well as for a team that badly, badly needs some wins and something positive to build off of offensively. But The Answer? ...

I'm not sold yet.

To Be Filed Under: Wow.

Unbelievable.

Look, I know that sometimes politicians change their mind about things -- they're only human, and sometimes that is to be applauded, particularly when they are forthright about the change and the reasons for it.

This is just unbelievable. How do you go from being correct to so very, very wrong?