Happy Halloween, Y'all!

For this year's pumpkin, I decided to go crazy and give this whole "scraping" thing a shot -- it'll improve with practice, but for a first attempt, I'm relatively satisfied.

Happy Halloween!

First of Three LA Sports Entries: Torre Watch?

Oh, what the hell, I'll give in -- Grady Little is no longer the manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Countdown to Torre moving cross-country? Seems more likely now.

Still reserving comment until that either happens or doesn't.

A Quick Entry on the Lakers:

I have been a Lakers fan for as long as I've been a fan of pro basketball. When I was a kid, my dad and I watched, and loved the Magic/Bird games -- he rooted for Bird and so, being the natural contrarian that I am, I sided with Magic, and with the Lakers.

I've always been a Laker fan.

But here's the thing:

I hate Kobe Bryant.

Even if it means winning thirty games this season -- and that may even be generous -- the sooner that cancer is out of there, the better.

I don't enjoy watching the NBA for the sake of watching basketball (nor can I watch it over here anyway, but that's a different matter), but I've always enjoyed watching the Lakers. I can't even enjoy that while Bryant is still there. Yes, he's a phenomenal player, but I have to say it, I want him traded, and I want him to fall flat on his face.

Here's hoping he'll be gone as soon as is possible . . .

Kings On a Roll:

Don't look now, but my Kings have won four straight and five of six -- I mention this today because they're putting that streak on the line against Columbus, who is trying for their fourth in a row. To continue mentioning streaks, the Kings have won five straight against Columbus in LA.

Let's go Kings!

Torre + Mattingly to LA?

These three stories say could be.

No official confirmation, yet, but we'll see how this develops.

Until it becomes official, no comment from me.

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 8:

CLE @ STL -- CLE (if there's a team that will go winless this season, Saint Louis is the best bet -- even with the Dolphins down to their #2 QB AND #2 RB) And the Rams are on the receiving end of both insult -- a franchise-worst 0-8 start -- and injury, and injury and injury -- and so on. Ritchie Incognito goes down this week -- oh, and that Stephen Jackson guy got hurt again, too.

NYG @ MIA -- MIA (call me crazy, but I'm taking the Fish here. Yes, seriously.) Nice football weather, wasn't it? I love muddy, sodden games like that. Too bad I got the pick wrong.

PHI @ MIN -- PHI Tarvaris Jackson will go next week if he can, but most importantly, Kelly Holcomb walked away. How, I'm not really sure.

IND @ CAR -- IND This was a slow start for the Colts, but what a finish. Bring on the Pats!

DET @ CHI -- CHI Fantastic decision to play Griese over Kitna in one of my fantasy leagues. Really, a good call. D'oh.

PIT @ CIN -- PIT Seven in a row now in the Jungle. Are the Bungles back? Well, that's a stupid question -- are they trying to catch the Dolphins for worst record in the conference?

OAK @ TEN -- OAK Uncomfortable shades of '06 -- brilliant pass defense, pathetic offense, a close, low-scoring loss. Ugh.

JAC @ TB -- TB Garcia chose a great game to throw his first INT of the season. And his second. And his third.

BUF @ NYJ -- BUF Fool me once . . .

HOU @ SD -- SD (and I'll be sincerely surprised if the margin of victory is less than 20) The only surprise was SD taking their foot off the gas in the second half.

NO @ SF -- NO Poor Niners.

WAS @ NE -- NE I picked the Pats to win, but I didn't think that they'd win by a seven-score margin. Harsh.

GB @ DEN -- GB Brett really likes Monday night, doesn't he?

For the week: 9-4.

For the season: 69-47.

NFL Picks: Week 8:

CLE @ STL -- CLE (if there's a team that will go winless this season, Saint Louis is the best bet -- even with the Dolphins down to their #2 QB AND #2 RB)
NYG @ MIA -- MIA (call me crazy, but I'm taking the Fish here. Yes, seriously.)
PHI @ MIN -- PHI
IND @ CAR -- IND
DET @ CHI -- CHI
PIT @ CIN -- PIT
OAK @ TEN -- OAK
JAC @ TB -- TB
BUF @ NYJ -- BUF
HOU @ SD -- SD (and I'll be sincerely surprised if the margin of victory is less than 20)
NO @ SF -- NO
WAS @ NE -- NE
GB @ DEN -- GB

Stop Me If You've Heard This Before:

"We're looking for a white truck."

At least this is a slightly more specific lead than the "white van" actively sought during the search for the Muhammad and Malvo, aka, the Washington Snipers.

I have to wonder whether this lead is any less correct than the "white van" lead was then.

Better Late than Never?

Genarlow Wilson has been released from a Georgia prison, belatedly, but finally.

Now maybe he can get back to his life.

Lumbago

It's not the most specific of diagnoses, but I STRONGLY recommend against putting yourself in the position to receive this diagnosis from an orthopedist.

"Sweet dancing Jehovah, I blew up my back!"

Yeah, I pretty much did. It's been a very long week as a result. The upshot is that I'm improving -- hey, I can almost stand up straight again! -- and should be back to mostly normal within a few more days. Then it's a bit of rehab and some modifications to my exercise routine. If I can prevent this from ever happening again, I will.

Raiders-Chiefs: Week 7:

Another week, another division loss. 3, 9, 17: three division losses to start the season, nine in a row now (NINE?!) to the Chiefs, 17 total division losses during the current 0-fer.

Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:

• The Run Defense.
  The numbers don't look spectacular, for sure, but there's more to it than that. Yes, LJ got 112 on 24 with a touch, but he was also 23 for 53 with a touch, if you can take away that one big play. It's a small consolation, but the run defense overall was MUCH better last week than this week, aided no doubt by a much, much better pass rush -- but the symbiosis that is the defense as an organic whole benefited from each phase playing at a much better level. The Raiders pursued without overpursuing, contained the gaps, and overall played a solid defensive game.


• Lane Kiffin.
  On the face of it, that 4th and 1 was a terrible call -- the run got stuffed, and if the field goal is converted, then the game goes into OT after Daunte throws that pick (assuming, of course, that Herm does the sane thing on the LJ touchdown in the fourth and kicks, rather than going for 2). Not that the Raiders have much luck in OT, but that's not the point. The point is, even though I disagree with the call, he made it, he went for it, and he demonstrated trust in his players, a trust that those guys on the offense sorely need to feel continually until they get used to, as Culp said, making more winning plays than losing plays. They made a losing play in a bad position, but Kif said he'd do it all over again and let them try to make the winning play. Love, love the chutzpah.


• The Big-Play Swagger.
  The Raiders answered two big plays -- LJ's 54-yard romp and Dave Rayner's missed fg -- with two big plays of their own: a 59-yard catch by Jerry Porter followed immediately by a 21-yard touchdown pass to Ron Curry. Big plays after big plays. I love it. The Raiders are starting to get a little bit of confidence in themselves, even in losing games, and are taking bigger shots more often. They did it twice against Denver, and with a better pass the second time, they win. They did it a lot more against KC, looking back at that first-half play when Curry was interfered with by Benny Sapp on what would have been a 30+-yard completion. Big plays with a generally balanced, conservative offense? I like.


• Special Teams.
  Better coverage by far, better returns. Even that ridiculous fumble early in the game can't bump this down into the "ambivalent" category this week. That said ...

Things I was ambivalent about:

• The defense.
  The run D was so much better that I included it in the "good" list, and wait a second, I also said that I liked the pass defense, but here the defense is listed again in the "ambivalent" section? What gives?
  
  Look at KC's first drive as a microcosm of the Raider D this game and this season: 10 plays, 57 yards, and a field goal.
  
  But look at the plays on that drive. The problem -- and the ambivalence -- comes in the yards per play category: 5.7. But that's not the whole story, nor is it the source of my frustration. KC had a first-down 9-yard LJ run, a third-down 22-yard pass to Dwayne Bowe, and a first-down 20-yard completion to Tony Gonzalez. Three plays 51 yards. That means that the other seven plays on the drive netted 6 yards, an average of less than one yard per play.
  
  7 plays go for 6 yards, 3 for 51. This is my ambivalence with and concern about the Raiders' D.


• Dropped Passes.
  Curry alone was guilty of three dropped balls, if you credit Sapp with good defense rather than un-called interference (I don't, but the refs did, and that's more the point than my griping about his left hand). What happens if the Raiders DON'T have the dropsies?
  
  They score more points -- same as KC does if they don't cover their hands with the same butter before the game and at halftime. Both teams were terrible at actually catching the ball, and both missed great opportunities as a result.
  
  Advantage? Push.
  

Things I Didn't Like:

• Going Away from the Running Game.
  Once again, the numbers weren't great, but again, this was due in part to a lack of trying. It was also due to some terrible penalties at the wrong time.


• Penalties, Turnovers, Sacks.
  -1, -1, 0.
  
  Not a bad line, and appropriate, given the score and general tightness of the game.
  
  The problem, and what kept this ultimately from being in the ambivalent category, was that the penalties could not have come at worse times. Instead of second and 6 after a good first-down run, the Raiders would get a penalty called and be in first and 20. Timing is everything, and the timing of the penalties was terrible.
  
  Nice to see a little bit of a pass rush, though -- Burgess was back, which helped Sapp, and if Warren can come back next week ...

Next week: at Tennessee, and a lot will depend on which QB TN rolls with. If Collins, then the improved pass rush, and improved run d, should put the Raiders in a good position to win. If it's VY, well, that just adds to the challenge.

The JaMarcus Russell era could be closer with another loss. I'm not saying this is Daunte's last chance, or the team's last chance to make the season meaningful, but I am saying that one more L just brings them that much closer to that point.

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 7:

NE @ MIA -- NE A resounding win, if highly unsportsmanlike. Tough break for Ronnie Brown -- here's hoping he recovers fully.

ATL @ NO -- Aints And just barely, too. What happened to the Saints?

SF @ NYG -- NYG An easy pick, and the Giants even made it look easy most of the way. Don't look now, but New York is coming on strong, much to my irritation (really not an Eli fan).

TEN @ HOU -- HOU (Kerry Collins is starting? That has me taking the Texans.) That's what I get for being a jerk, I suppose. Still, eight field goals?! Insane. Thanks go out to DeMeco Ryans, though, for the single highest-value play my fantasy team has had all season: a tackle, sack, forced fumble, fumble recovery, touchdown AND return yardage on the same play -- it was awesome. Also, here's hoping for the best for Matt Schaub -- best qb the University of Virginia has ever had.

BAL @ BUF -- BAL Something bothered me about this pick, and it was the fact that Baltimore's offense is so putrid right now as to make me wonder how they continue to win games. That and the Bills were due a win, and home's probably the best place for that. Too bad Ronnie Brown got hurt, or the Dolphins would be closer to a win themselves.

ARI @ WAS -- WAS God, but the Skins are boring. Some friends of mine said that this was a terrifying win. Were I a Skins fan, I'd have said the same. Reminded me of the Raiders-Browns game from Week 3 -- Washington was just good enough to lose, and probably should have.

TB @ DET -- TB Don't look now, but Detroit is 4-2. Unbelievable. Also, through seven games, Jeff Garcia still has not thrown an INT. Equally unbelievable, though more impressively, less sardonically.

KC @ OAK -- OAK Could have, would have, should have. Through no fault of his own, really, including that last play, Daunte is one step closer to the bench waiting out the end of the season as the JaMarcus Russell era begins. A loss at Tennessee next weekend -- which has to be considered at least a good possibility, if not a probability -- will hasten that era.

NYJ @ CIN -- CIN I'm still almost surprised to have been right about this one.

MIN @ DAL -- DAL Hardly a convincing performance; maybe they're starting to feel the heat within the division?

CHI @ PHI -- PHI That last drive was a thing of beauty.

STL @ SEA -- SEA (but it is entirely possible that both will lose) I may have gotten the scale of the game wrong, but I got the pick right. Still, where in the world is Shaun Alexander? It can't be just his wrist.

PIT @ DEN -- PIT Another last-second FG win for Denver, despite Roethlisberger's best efforts.

IND @ JAC (Let's Go Jags!) Damn.

For the week: 7-7. At least I wasn't below. 500, I guess.

For the season: 60-42.

More on the Wiretapping Goodness:

A couple of opinion pieces, in more or less point-counterpoint fashion, from USA Today.

Which makes the better argument? Read each of them and decide for yourself.

Me? No need to put me down as undecided -- read both articles, decide which makes an actual argument and which relies on vapid, empty talking points. I prefer the former, though the latter is good for a laugh. Not a "ha-ha, this is actually funny" laugh, but more of a "my good god, this is so terribly sad" laugh.

Oh, and Rep. Hoekstra, if you're going to give Bush credit for us not having been attacked since 9/11, I guess you have to do the unthinkable and give Billy Boy credit for the eight years that passed between foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Come to think of it, by 2001, Bush was president. My word, it was his fault!!

Reductionist reasoning is fun.

Man, This Place SUX:

Sioux City Airport has quite possibly the best airport designation in the world: SUX.

Marvelous.

NFL Picks: Week 7:

NE @ MIA -- NE
ATL @ NO -- Aints
SF @ NYG -- NYG
TEN @ HOU -- HOU (Kerry Collins is starting? That has me taking the Texans.)
BAL @ BUF -- BAL
ARI @ WAS -- WAS
TB @ DET -- TB
KC @ OAK -- OAK
NYJ @ CIN -- CIN
MIN @ DAL -- DAL
CHI @ PHI -- PHI
STL @ SEA -- SEA (but it is entirely possible that both will lose)
PIT @ DEN -- PIT
IND @ JAC (Let's Go Jags!)

College FB Update 1: Dumbest Coach in America:

The number of things that I probably know about coaching football at the NFL level -- well, if I can actually count them on one hand, I'll have to be somewhat impressed.

One of the things that I THINK that I know is that when you're in a position to get out-coached, and you do nothing to prevent it, you deserve to lose.

Enter Bill Callahan. Dumbest coach in America. Why dumbest? Because when his Raiders won seven of their final eight games in 2002 to sew up home-field advantage through the playoffs, this coming off a four-game losing streak, which itself came off a season-opening four-game winning streak, did he sneak a peek at the NFC standings? Apparently not. His team had a first-week bye, giving them two weeks to make some minor changes here and there. Two playoff games, two more weeks to make some minor adjustments. The layoff between whipping the Titans in the AFC Championship and heading down to San Diego? Yet more time to make adjustments.

What would you really want to change when your offense was clearly the best in the league and when your team won home-field? Nothing major, just little things: insert a few more running plays into the scheme, just in case you need them. Change a few of the audible calls -- just a few, just in case you wind up playing someone who knows your audible calls down the road. Try a silent count in practice, rather than a hard count that some other people may be able to ape.

Yes, I'm talking about Jon Gruden. Callahan had Gruden's playbook, and Callahan's inability to adjust to that fact before the game led to a disaster to predictable and so complete that even John Lynch was mystified, commenting on the sidelines that they'd run all those plays and all those calls in practice.

Bill was thoroughly, thoroughly outcoached in that game, and the miracle is that the Raiders, for a quarter, looked like the dominant team they had been all season.

Rather than learning the correct lesson from that, Bill overreacted, changing the entire playbook over the offseason. Whereas a few tweaks here and there may have helped avert disaster in January, by August and September, the team's best offensive players were publicly protesting an offense that they didn't understand and that the team was having a hard time mastering in such a short period of time. The result? 4-12, Callahan calls his team out as "The dumbest team in America!" and Bill is mercifully fired at the end of the season.

I have zero love for Bill Callahan, and in fact my personal highlight that season was drawing a dirty look from Mr. "Were Duh-m!" when I heckled him in Pittsburgh. Good times, even though I was aware that the Steeler fans were cheering the Raider fan who heckled his OWN coach. Had to be done.

That's why, as little as I care about the Big 12, I am intensely gratified to see Nebraska getting blown out week, after week, after week, after week. One thing that is almost admirable about Callahan is his ego: he's convinced that he can undo an offensive scheme that an organization has been working with -- in the case of the Raiders, for four-plus seasons (Gruden's system), in the case of Nebraska, for decads -- and make it work immediately. 'Hey, I'm just that good,' he thinks, before tossing the old playbook into the fireplace and getting out his 128-box of Crayola to start marking up a new one.

For the second time, his attempt to forcibly reconstruct a premier organization has gone precisely where that playbook has gone: down in flames.

Couldn't have happened to a dumber guy. Way to go, Coach!

College FB Update 2: WAHOOWA!

Don't look now, but UVA is on a seven-game winning streak. After that terrible loss at Wyoming on opening weekend, I didn't expect much from this season.

Seven consecutive wins later, I'm a bit happier. Beating Tech would make this season a total success; winning a bowl game would be the cherry on top.

The Democrats Kow-Tow Again on Wiretapping:

Read here

Under the bill, the administration would get retroactive legal immunity for the telecommunications companies that have granted the National Security Agency access to private communications and phone call data; Democrats would get increased oversight of the agency's eavesdropping by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Congress and inspectors general.

Thanks, guys. Way to do the right thing for Americans by protecting the corporations from the people.

Priests Protesting Torture Arrested for Trespass:

If the churches get more involved in this national disgrace, the White House is going to begin to have serious problems.

Kudos to these two men for going to jail in a brave act of civil disobedience. Notice that the article has very little to say about their defense of the actual charges for which they were tried -- this was clearly to make a point, and it was clearly an act of legitimate civil disobedience.

Here's hoping the example spreads. These types of protests from the churches are quite welcome in the current political climate.

Michael Mukasey Unclear on Definitions:

with presumed soon-to-be AG Michael Mukasey giving mixed signals about where he will ultimately fall on the question of torture.

If it's torture, Mukasey says, then it's unconstitutional. Well and good -- and certainly correct. The question of waterboarding, however, remains somehow ambiguous for Mukasey:

``I'm hoping that you can at least look at this one technique and say: that clearly constitutes torture, it should not be the policy of the United States to engage in waterboarding,'' said [Illinois Senator Dick Durbin].

``It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else,'' Mukasey replied.

....

``If it is torture as defined by the Constitution, or defined by constitutional standards, it can't be authorized,'' Mukasey said.

``Is waterboarding constitutional?'' pressed Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. ``It either is or it isn't.''

Mukasey again demurred, saying he doesn't know what's involved in the technique.

``If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional,'' the nominee replied.

Thanks for clearing that up. If it's torture, then it's unconstitutional. Is it torture? Gosh, I don't know, but if it is, then it's unconstitutional. Majikthise has a video of part of that exchange.

To answer Mukasey's question, yes waterboarding is torture -- at least when it's done to Americans:

...in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

15 years hard labor when used ON Americans.

A good interrogation technique when used BY Americans.

What was that again, President Bush, about not condoning moral relativism?

Raiders-Chargers Week 6:

This one is going to have to be short, since it took me so long to get to it this week:
Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:

• Thomas Howard.
  I was sorely tempted to say "not much," but I can't -- Howard played a great game, making plays all over the place. He and Morrison are the team's surest tacklers, and their surest ball-hawks this season, with seven INTs and 2 TDs between them (both TDs to Howard). He made an incredible play on Rivers to get the Raiders back in the game in the second, and his tackling during the middle portions of the game kept a game that should have been a genuine wipeout close enough.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• The defense.
  It is very frustrating to see the defense make a series of very good plays -- sure tackling, gap containment, not falling too hard for fakes, protecting running and passing lanes, play after play after play and then . . . boom -- Stuart Schweigert is trying to run down LT from behind. 9/10 won't cut it if the tenth is always over 20 yards. This is a big-play defense, for whatever reason, and they've got a problem this week, too -- LT and Gates pose problems, but so do LJ and Gonzo. They have GOT to find themselves a pass rush (cutting Moses is all the more inexplicable when you see how clean opposing qbs stay when they play the Raiders) and the run D has GOT to improve.

Things I Didn't Like:

• Going Away from the Running Game.
  League's #1 run offense facing a real test, so they come out throwing. I can't explain that call. The running offense didn't look too good on the bottom line -- 23 for 53 -- but, just like with the defense, there were windows that were missed -- such as first-and-goal from the 1 in the second quarter. Yes, running is predictable there, but you have three shots to line up, say, Fargas behind Jordan AND Griffith, if that's what it takes, or hey, line Sapp up back there as a pulling fullback and let him lead Jordan around the right end. The play calls are there, and they could probably have gotten a tying TD with a genuine dedication to the run.
  
  Instead, they elected to throw. Two sacks and a fumble later, not even a FG was possible; a game that should have gone into halftime 14-14, or at least 14-10, instead was 14-7.


• Daunte Culpepper.
  Doctor Jekyll became Mr. Hyde this week, and one play sums it up perfectly: rolling to his right in the second, scanning the field to try and make a throw before he ran out of time, Daunte just up and dropped the ball. The butterfingers were back, and the turnovers with it. Daunte also was indecisive, and took sacks rather than throwing the ball away when he could have limited some of his team's misfortunes by chucking the ball out of bounds, rather than run around until Sterroid-man caught up with him.


• Penalties, Turnovers, Sacks.
  Once again, the line speaks for itself: -2, -1, -6. MINUS SIX?! Ugh.

Next week: KC at home and a great chance to end this unfathomable losing streak at 16. After moving into first through no effort of their own, the Raiders dropped all the way back to the bottom -- a win against KC will help them immeasurably, particularly because they're entering the last phase of their schedule with winnable games -- they have a chance to go on a run and make something of this season, but it has to start this weekend.

If they win, they have a chance to get on a roll.

Lose again, and the countdown to a raw, green JaMarcus Russell will really begin in earnest.

Please, Kif -- run the ball again!

Taking a Break:

Taking a break from preparing tomorrow's class to play with my little girl.

Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Ham:

Ok, that's a bit overblown, but this essay is a fascinating look at a 'staple' food in America.

I do love a good ham -- particularly at Christmas or Easter. Ham biscuits? Delish. A nice, thick slice of Smithfield ham, fried up in a skillet alongside eggs for breakfast? Actually, I'm starting to get a bit hungry, so I should stop here.

Democracy vs. Security: Which Holds Trump?

This is a very interesting article discussing U.S. aid to Ethiopia within the greater contexts of "spreading democracy" and the "war on terror."

The question in Ethiopia exists in different terms, but the basic premise remains the same: how do you balance between democracy and security? Where do you put the emphasis, and can you emphasize one without jeopardizing the other?

My answer is probably obvious, but the question is legitimate and needs to be formally decided; that I think there is only one correct answer underscores the imperative need to rule the others out.

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 6:

StL @ BAL -- BAL The more I see of the Ravens, the less I like them.

MIN @ CHI -- CHI At least AP went off and scored mad fantasy points for me.

MIA @ CLE -- CLE (even though I want Miami to pull it off) I'm glad I resisted the impulse to call upset here. I am, however, upset that Cleo Lemon had the two rushing tds, not Ronnie Brown.

WAS @ GB -- GB (tough, though) Brett's new record is slightly less distinguished than the td record.

HOU @ JAC -- JAC An easy pick, but I didn't imagine a wipeout!

CIN @ KC -- CIN (though it's hard to imagine KC losing two in a row at home, even as bad as they are now) Should've gone with my gut on this one. As bad as KC may still be, Cincinatti is just awful right now.

PHI @ NYJ -- PHI A game that was a lot closer than it should have been, and against even a semi-competent opponent -- say, the Raiders -- the Iggles would have lost this one.

TEN @ TB -- TB Nothing like a bare flash of excitement to take a dead boring game and make it interesting at the last possible moment. Keep watching Jeff Garcia -- nothing at all special about what he's doing, but he's played extremely well thus far. He's also protected the ball better than any QB in the league thus far.

CAR @ ARI -- ARI Damn you, Kurt Warner, for once again sinking my battleship.

NE @ DAL -- NE I thought this one may get ugly, and it was.

OAK @ SD -- OAK (though were I a proper betting man I'd bet on SD improving their all-time record against Oakland to 39-54-2) Should've called like a betting man -- woof.

NO @ SEA -- SEA Alexander and Hasselbeck are way, way better than they're showing. This Seattle team is high on the list of underachievers, now that the Chargers are a couple of steps toward taking themselves off that list entirely.

NYG @ ATL -- NYG Poor Atlanta.

For the week: 8-5. Should've been 9-4, but it's just hard to pick against the Raiders within the division, even though they've now lost 16 straight in the division.

For the season: 53-35.

Dave Barry: Big Trouble

Because sometimes you just need a break.

I'll go ahead and nick the summary from B&N:

n the city of Coconut Grove, Florida, these things happen: A struggling adman named Eliot Arnold drives home from a meeting with the Client From Hell. His teenage son, Matt, fills his Squirtmaster 9000 for his turn at a high school game called Killer. Matt's intended victim, Jenny Herk, sits down in front of the TV with her mom for what she hopes will be a peaceful evening - for once. Jenny's alcoholic and secretly embezzling stepfather, Arthur, emerges from the maid's room, angry at being rebuffed - again. Henry and Leonard, two hit men from New Jersey, pull up to the Herks' house for a real game of Killer - Arthur's embezzlement apparently not having been quite so secret to his employers after all. And a homeless man named Puggy settles down for the night in a treehouse just inside the Herks' yard.

In a few minutes, a chain of events that will change the lives of each and every one of them will begin, and will leave some of them wiser, some of them deader, and some of them definitely looking for a new line of work. With a wicked wit, razor-sharp observations, rich characters, and a plot with more twists than the Inland Waterway, Dave Barry makes his debut a complete and utter triumph.

You may have seen the movie version of this, an ensemble comedy with Tim Allen, Renee Russo, Dennis Farina, Jason Lee, Janeane Garofalo, and, uh, Puddy (what is his actual name, anyway?) If you haven't, the movie is recommended -- very funny, and a good adaptation.

Since the movie was great and a good adaptation, the book is also a must. It'll only take you about two hours to read it, you will laugh out loud several times (and hard), and what better way to relax for a couple of hours than by laughing? It may even take you less time to read the book than watch the movie!

NFL Week 6:

Just in time, mostly:

StL @ BAL -- BAL
MIN @ CHI -- CHI
MIA @ CLE -- CLE (even though I want Miami to pull it off)
WAS @ GB -- GB (tough, though)
HOU @ JAC -- JAC
CIN @ KC -- CIN (though it's hard to imagine KC losing two in a row at home, even as bad as they are now)
PHI @ NYJ -- PHI
TEN @ TB -- TB
CAR @ ARI -- ARI
NE @ DAL -- NE
OAK @ SD -- OAK (though were I a proper betting man I'd bet on SD improving their all-time record against Oakland to 39-54-2)
NO @ SEA -- SEA
NYG @ ATL -- NYG

Department of Justice: Minorities' Voting Rights Protected By Their Higher Mortality Rate

Come again?. With video goodness.

No comment.

Bush on the Armenian Genocide:

Arlen Parsa over at The Daily Background has a great post about Bush *gasp* flip-flopping on the question of the Armenian genocide.

Congratulations Al Gore.

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change.

Congratulations Al. Now suck up and be ready -- the conservative elements in the MSM (which is to say, most of them), are presumably ready to drop your name in with Arafat every chance they get, since you both won the same prize nudge nudge wink wink ifyouknowwhatImean.

(So the question is, I suppose -- is this prediction accurate, or am I a cynical, jaded bastard? ...

Or both?)

Ann Coulter Strikes Back!

I'm sure everyone has heard about it by now, but if you haven't, check out Ann Coulter telling Donny Deutsch that Jews would be better off if they converted to Christianity.

You know, it occurs to me that the GOP has expended a considerable amount of effort to make MoveOn.org the face of the Democrat [sic] party.

Maybe it's time for the Dems to step up and make her the face of the GOP?

Nah, that would make sense. Lawd knows the Dems don't want to do that!

Franklin E. Zimring: The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment

American capital punishment is inherently contradictory, and it's these contradictions that Zimring tries to work through in this book. His previous books on the subject are more rigorously scholarly, with lengthier and more inclusive bibliographies, with more foot- and endnotes (or with any notes at all) and more pointedly trying to convey information first and the author's agenda second. This book is the opposite in many ways: it is very personal, it is expansive and abstract while remaining analytical, and it is focused on capital punishment per se as much as -- or maybe more than -- the nuances of the practice and its implementation.

Zimring identifies and works through three basic contradictions involved with capital punishment: first, there is the American predilection, not elsewhere reflected within comparable nations and populaces, toward viewing the death penalty not as a human rights issue, nor as an issue of state power, but as a "simple" law-and-order issue. In fact, Zimring correctly identifies the curious trend at work within American discourse on capital punishment, and that is to turn it into a "service" question:

I find a degovernmentalization of the image of death penalties and executions in the United States, that is, an attempt to reimagine executions as a service that the government provides to the relatives of crime victims rather than as a manifestation of the power of the state. (14)

The consequence of this, Zimring notes, is to mute any abolitionist attempts to turn the death penalty into a broader human rights or limits of state power issue; a second consequence is to turn the entire process into a transaction, which remains necessarily incomplete until the final action in the performative "sale" -- the execution -- is carried out. This is the dominant theme in the discourse, the fact that merely a bare fraction of capital charges result in executions notwithstanding (in fact, this is but another contradiction of American capital punishment).

A larger consequence, that Zimring hints at rather than stating outright -- and deals with more effectively as a result -- is the question of the citizenry's willful obliviousness to the extent of governmental power, and the power that comes with an ability to transform the extension of state power by couching it within "service" language:

This symbolic transformation of execution into a victim-service program provides three powerful functions for the death penalty in the United States. First, it gives the horrifying process of human execution a positive impact that many citizens can identify with: closure, not vengeance. Second, this degovernmentalization of the rationale of the death penalty means that citizens do not have to worry about executions as an excessive use of power by and for the government. When “closure” is the major aim of lethal injections, the execution of criminals becomes another public service, like street cleaning or garbage removal, where the government is the servant of the community rather than its master.

The third function of the transformation of execution into a victim service gesture is that it links the symbolism of execution to a long American history of community control of punishment. (62)

The second contradiction that Zimring identifies is the well-documented conflict within Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Here the contradiction is between the legal requirement that capital juries have sentencing guidelines so as to limit their discretion in capital cases -- stemming from the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia -- and the requirement that each case be given individual consideration, which stems from the Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Gregg v. Georgia. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is far from a lone in noting the contradiction at work here, but this is well-traveled ground, and Zimring dedicates less time and space to this contradiction than to the others he considers.

As part of the "legal" contradiction, though, Zimring indulges his own abolitionism to argue strenuously -- and correctly -- against the injustice of the contemporary variety of death penalty "reforms." These reforms -- and here Zimring singles out (but very briefly, unfortunately) the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty (AEDPA) Act as an example -- target the most visible but least understood part of the capital punishment process: the time between sentencing and final action, whether execution, clemency or otherwise. The fact that the public at large does not understand the processes at work during this delay makes it easy for politicians to "reform" the system to ensure "swifter justice." The problem, Zimring notes -- again, correctly -- is that the reforms are nothing more than a rollback of legal protections for the condemned. The object of legislative reforms over the past two decades has been to enact legal regulations and procedural requirements that make it progressively more difficult to rectify any errors that may have occurred at the original jury trial. This is no small matter -- before AEDPA, better than 60% of capital sentences were overturned on appeal due to serious constitutional errors in the trial. The solution, the various legislatures at the state and national levels found, was to roll back constitutional protections and make it more and more difficult, through such procedural niceties as default, for a defendant to challenge the legality of their sentence.

Zimring uses Roger Keith Coleman as an example of the problems with default. Virginia law required Coleman to file a brief outlining the claims he was going to make at the state appeals level within 30 days of his conviction. His lawyers filed that brief 33 days afterward -- three days too late. Rather than waive the violation (which one could reasonably assume was quite independent of the defendant himself and for which the blame rested solely on his counsel [which, in a more perfect system, would open a potential federal habeas claim of ineffective assistance of counsel -- except for the fact that federal caselaw does not recognize a right to counsel beyond the mandatory state habeas process]), the Virginia Supreme Court procedurally defaulted Coleman's appeals, ensuring that they could not be heard. Coleman, in effect, could not appeal his sentence due to his lawyers' errors. This is the sort of action that is at the heart of this contradiction. In trying to show that they're committed to strengthening the system, legislatures have created rules that unjustly harm defendants when they are most vulnerable: in the crucial post-trials processes. In order to make the system more effective, legislatures have elected to make it fundamentally less fair. There is no small irony in this, and neither is there much to say about it, other than to agree whole-heartedly with Zimring's conclusions that this is a reprehensible turn of events. For my part, I only wish I thought that Thurgood Marshall's analysis were correct, but while Justice Marshall believed that the public would turn away from capital punishment were they to learn how it truly worked, I, unfortunately, believe that the majority -- enough, in other words -- would simply continue not to care.

Zimring's third contradiction is something I've had an eye on for some time myself, but he expresses it very eloquently. This also is a speculative contradiction, as he acknowledges, because the quantitative data simply does not exist. The third and final contradiction that Zimring sees is between the "due processers" -- those who believe that dispassionate implementation of the law is the correct recourse to criminality, and who place an emphasis on the limitations the law imposes on the state, thereby supporting a full enactment of due process rights for the accused -- and the "vigilantes," a self-explanatory category.

Here Zimring's arguments are the most speculative, because there is the least amount of data to support them. How does one measure statistical due process sentiment vs. vigilante sentiment, for instance? The questions could probably be asked to at least achieve a rough estimate, but Zimring points out that they have not yet been systematically asked.

The "vigilante values" in question are difficult to unpack, but a careful and attentive read will reveal the complexity of even posing the question. Asserting "vigilante values" as a controlling factor means that these values must be strongest -- and their counterparts the weakest -- where the death penalty reigns supreme: the American South. When the question is phrased in terms of "vigilante values," and when the geographic disparity centers on the old Confederacy and the border states, there are a number of natural follow-up questions that immediately suggest themselves and demand to be considered, to say nothing of the question of violence itself and why the South is the most violent region in the country. As a consequence, Zimring's argument here becomes the most expansive, and there are several detailed critiques that can be made, depending on the data one reads and uses.

One such critique that I would make briefly centers on the following quotation:

The vigilante mindset is one in which the citizen assumes that criminals are clearly identified enemies of the community rather than members of it. The community has the right to defend itself against these alien enemies, and any legal prerequisites to punishment are resented as unnecessary and potentially disabling.

A similar sentiment has been expressed by Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence in their books The Myth of the American Superhero and, especially, Captain America and the Crusade against Evil: The Dilemma of Zealous Nationalism. I would object, however, to the idea that the criminal exists outside the community; this does not seem to me to paint the full picture. Rather, I think that an examination of the rhetoric involved actually has two parallel but somewhat contradictory functions. First, the criminal is generally absorbed into the community rhetorically; rather than pushed away and relegated to "outsider" status -- the second rhetorical step -- the criminal is first rhetorically moved within the bounds of the community. This first step, which Zimring overlooks in his arguments, is critical -- it is this rhetorical internalization of the criminal that gives the community warrant to punish the criminal; the criminal rhetorically is an inside of sorts, though clearly a fallen insider, one whom the community is bound to punish because he is one of them. This is the simultaneous move to the outside that Zimring begins with: Once the criminal is acknowledged as a member of the community who can be punished, he is rhetorically moved back outside of the community, so as to become an "outsider" meriting punishment for his sins and misdeeds. Zimring's argument is an excellent beginning for such rhetorical considerations of the locative features of death penalty discourse; it would have been a more profound argument, however, had he not begun mid-stream.

This is one of several objections that could be raised to the theme that runs through the book, that the contradictions of American capital punishment are those that arise from the fundamental, irreconcilable conflict between "due process" values and "vigilante" values. Zimring's book also covers well-traveled ground in many ways: the sections dedicated to the failure of the courts impose standards for sentencing that satisfy the contradictory requirements of Furman and Gregg, the Southernization of the death penalty and the geographic disparity that this represents, the racial and economic biases in the system -- all of these are important, and all of these are dealt with at length elsewhere. That said, however, Zimring's book is very valuable is in its speculative efforts -- the claims that it makes but cannot fully substantiate. Even though these claims cannot be "proven" in any quantitative sense, they can be -- and need to be -- considered and pondered. I do not agree with Zimring's claims completely, and believe that his analysis of the problem of vigilantism is but a good start to a consideration of that problem, but this book is essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand how the death penalty works in the United States. It will not provide a nuts-and-bolts accounting of the process, but it will guide an interested reader through many of the core intellectual and cognitive difficulties that the issue presents.

Little Rock: 50 Years Later:

Little Rock has been on the minds and schedules of many people interested in American history either vocationally or avocationally.

Little Rock then:



A very good article on Little Rock and "the fifty years following" can be found here.

The article is a bit long, but well, well worth reading. It has some obvious flaws in its approach, but it is valuable because it tactfully and, I think deftly, asks the right question without ever belaboring the point or reducing the right question to naked text, where the deficiencies of the human imagination to truly wrestle with the question can intrude (an intrusion I have to permit, since I've already engaged in it):

What is reconciliation?


One of the more irksome elements of the Little Rock story is that it seems to be taken for granted that the story ended. Faubus called out the National Guard, Ike (belatedly) called out the Airborne, the school was integrated, dust was clapped from hard-working hands, a job well done. Right?

The Vanity Fair article does a decent job of contradicting that notion, and rightly so. The story continues: Little Rock now:

As the only African-American in most of my classes, I experience firsthand what some dismiss as “subtle” racism.

When food is the subject, my schoolmates stereotypically assume that my favorites include fried chicken, watermelon and Kool-Aid. When the classroom lights dim in advance of a film, somebody always feels compelled to say, “Where’d Brandon go?” as if my skin caused me to blend with the now dark room. To these white students, black is also synonymous with being afraid of dogs, not knowing how to swim and wearing clothes that are too big. Stereotypes rule. As a result, for costume day at Central, white students dress in sagging pants and wear hats turned to the side pretending to be black. When a vote is taken in class, someone always seems to interject a historical note — that my vote should only count as three-fifths of a vote because I am black. White students seem perplexed that I want to attend Vanderbilt University, not Grambling, Arkansas at Pine Bluff, or some other historically black college or university.

A very well-written article, well worth reading, particularly in conjunction with the VF piece, and not just in the context of Little Rock itself, but in the greater American context. Where have the last couple of generations brought us? Where do we still need to go? (And, of course, who is the "we" in each of those questions?)

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 5:

ARI @ STL -- ARI Leinart hurt, but Fitzgerald finally gets into the endzone.

CLE @ NE -- NE (but this game has "trap" written on it) So it wasn't as competitive as it could have been -- this game still revealed some chinks in the Pats' armor; their inability to put Cleveland completely away may show teams like Dallas or Indy how they can play and beat the Pats.

CAR @ NO -- 'Aints Worst to First to Worst? Right now, NO is playing like they want the #1 overall.

NYJ @ NYG -- NYG The Jets are doing nothing well right now.

SEA @ PIT -- PIT I almost changed this pick when I got the injury report, and I'm glad I didn't get suckered by Polamalu and Hampton's absences. This wasn't ever close.

DET @ WAS -- DET Eventually the Lions have to win in DC. It's mathematically impossible that they won't, eventually.

MIA @ HOU -- HOU (Though were this game in Miami, I'd give the Fish their first win) I'd have been right -- and almost was right enough to be wrong. Miami will get some wins along the way, though with Green down, how long before Lemon gets the hook in favor of John Beck?

ATL @ TEN -- TEN I'd like to thank LenDale White for costing one of my fantball teams points; I didn't even benefit from going up against VY this week.

JAC @ KC -- JAC To repeat: KC will finish last in the West.

TB @ IND -- IND (again, change the locale, I change the pick, despite TB's injuries) That caveat may have been overstating the case; Indy looked awfully good, and TB didn't do much of anything right.

SD @ DEN -- heads Denver, tails SD -- heads, DEN Stupid coin.

BAL @ SF -- BAL One of those games I'm glad I didn't watch. Neither team is any good.

CHI @ GB -- GB The Pack Raidered Up and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory; it'd almost be ok were the game in Chicago, but to drop a game like that at home -- and to have Wrecks Grossman laughing at you when you throw a god-awful pick ... that hurts. Or it would, if Wrecks had any room to laugh, at all.

DAL @ BUF -- DAL Almost wrong, and this game was *almost* ugly enough from Dallas to get me a win in one of my fantasy leagues. Too bad the Cowboys were just good enough to win and give my opponent the W.

For the week: 10-4. Much better.

For the season: 45-31.

Some Fine Photoshopping:

Actually, I think this may have been Paint, but regardless -- it's the thought that counts.

Friend of mine took an offhand comment that I'd not sleep for a decade, and came up with this:

Thanks, man!